Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 1, 2009 4:24 PM

Europe certainly didn't go secular because of a plethora of sects. Likely it would have resisted secularization better if they'd had America's religious consumerist variety. And if it's religious leaders had been as stupid and/or dishonest as so many of ours are.

I think the worry about slightly increasing percentages of the godless has to do with the fear that prejudices in favor of religion may disappear (sniff). For how could America's religions compete honestly with non-religion?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Trug | October 1, 2009 4:27 PM

Phew, I needed a good chuckle.

But what are they so worried about anyway? Even if those poll numbers are correct, they right out said that atheists and agnostics only total about 2% of that 15% of non-religious people. The rest of them sound like deists or just non-practicing Christians.

So chill out Faux News, your precious little God still has plenty of followers to keep his widdle self safe from us heathens.

Posted by: bungoton | October 1, 2009 4:28 PM

Religions drop their differences? Maybe when hell freezes over. How can he expect religions to forget that they are all absolutely correct about everything? Not to forget that every religion is the one 'true' religion.

Peter W

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 1, 2009 4:31 PM

religions must drop their differences? oooh, this must be the beginning of that "One World Religion" the rapture ready crowd whines about so much.

Posted by: Zeno | October 1, 2009 4:33 PM

#2: Between the Catholics protection of pedophiles and the fundamentalists pushing a far-right political agenda

Now let's be fair about this: The Catholics are often in the forefront of right-wing politics these days -- especially the ones who are outraged that a majority of their co-religionists voted for Obama and that Notre Dame dared (dared!) to invite him to speak at its commencement ceremony. Right-wing Catholics have an entire broadcasting network devoted to their extremism (EWTN) and a pressure group (the Catholic League, which is mainly Bill Donohue) devoted to spewing bile at anyone who doesn't genuflect with sufficient ardor toward Rome.

They aren't just protecting pedophiles.

Posted by: Greg Laden | October 1, 2009 4:35 PM

They are right to be worried. A percentage here, a percentage there, then we reach a tipping point where all those people who are just pretending jump ship and the "Nones" become 70 percent of the population and the remaining 30 percent are divided into hundreds of factions. The tower of babel is real, baby. Each religion will have fewer than 3 percent of the population, most fewer than a half of a percent. Then they will commence to fight among themselves.

Bwahahahaaha!!!!

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 1, 2009 4:49 PM

Fishyfred, most of that is true. Christianity was a driving force on both sides of the debate over slavery and both sides of the civil rights debate.

The founding fathers, not so much.

Posted by: myminddroppings.wordpress.com | October 1, 2009 4:49 PM

The passage that caught my eye is the same one that was picked by Ray Moscow:

"Today, the rise of disaffection is so powerful that different denominations needs to band together to find a shared language of God that can move beyond the fading divisions of the past and begin moving toward a partnership
of different-but-equal traditions."

This is the kind of balderdash that they resort to selling once they start seeing that no one is buying the fire-n-brimstone divine-wrath stuff anymore. If they do decide to band together it means that they have abandoned their religion in the first place. The very first commandment exhorts the faithful to keep no god but thine own. How do they square that with "striving for a shared language of God"?

To be honest, such commentary does not worry me as much as the one that comes from "pseudo-intellectuals". What worries me are the Karen Armstrongs whose endearing personalities offer cover to the most pernicious religious impulses.

I blogged about that recently. I wonder what you folks think about who is really a greater threat to rational thinking. Is is the Religious-fundies who are looking for marriages-of-convenience or is it the soft-spoken gentle-hearted do-gooders that manage to project religions in rose-tinted hues. I wonder....

Posted by: NotMyGod | October 1, 2009 4:55 PM

Assuming Fox News is right about atheism being on the rise, and I've heard elsewhere that it is, that's awesome!
I'm reminded of the old joke (it takes place in olden days) of a Jewish woman reading the Protocols of Zion. Her friends were shocked: "Are you a self-hating Jew?"
She said,
"Every day, I see our people persecuted and killed. I hear people say they want to wipe us off the face of the earth. But when I read this, it says that we run all the banks, control the arts and academia, and are on the verge of taking over the world...and I feel great!"

Posted by: MikeM | October 1, 2009 5:00 PM

The posting says this is a "shocking" new study.

I can't possibly be the only one who's not shocked; reassured, sure. Shocked, no.

Frankly, I think even the high numbers in this article are much higher than reality. I don't know very many people who actually believe this crap. There are far more atheists than these studies think there are.

Better be careful, though. After all, their God is stronger than a unicorn.

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | October 1, 2009 5:04 PM

Europeans really abandoned religion in large numbers after the Holocaust. I'd be interested in a pointer to a serious historian or sociologist that discusses this relationship. It's no wonder that Christians engage in crazy gyrations to link the Holocaust to evolution when they've got over 1600 years of documented murderous anti-Semitism from Chrysostom to the Lateran Council to Luther to Hitler damning them and their crazy religion.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | October 1, 2009 5:13 PM

@21: Europeans really abandoned religion in large numbers after the Holocaust.

I think this trend started immediately after WWI and was going strong by the mid 1920's. I suppose it was too much senseless death, orchestrated and egged on by witless authorities (with God's backing), with most of the bodies never coming home.

Posted by: raven | October 1, 2009 5:23 PM

Good luck having all xian sects unite. They all passionately hate each other. With good reason, they have nothing in common except the name.

Dumb idea anyway. The xians, mostly the fundies are creating the Nones. When xian became a malevolent force attacking our society, no one wanted to be one anymore. They would have to become normal, intelligent, rational people and it isn't going to happen.

He was aghast as we regaled him with tales of my strange land where national political leaders are deathly frightened of calico cats..

What??? Calico cats? Don't you mean black cats? Which is a dead superstition most places.

One of the minor flaws of the bible is that there is no mention whatsoever of cats, even though they had been long domesticated in that region.

Posted by: DaveL | October 1, 2009 5:25 PM

Europe is a fine, successful place, the thriving heartland of Western thought, and they do very well with a diminished religious influence.

That's exactly what they fear. They're not afraid society will fall apart or that great calamity will befall us if people abandon religion. They're afraid it will not fall apart, and that no calamity will befall us. Then people would realize they had been lying the whole time, and cease to be afraid.

Posted by: bobxxxx | October 1, 2009 5:32 PM

The Fox News comments contain the usual "atheists are going to hell" threats. My contempt for retarded Christian assholes grows every day.

Posted by: Draken | October 1, 2009 5:36 PM

My father used to explain the difference between Europe and America by pointing out that those with outlandish religious ideas would rather try their luck in the colonies than risk mockery, discrimination or even persecution in their own country. So they emigrated and they got stuck in closed communities with little chance of keeping up with new ideas. Many of them probably never became aware of the Enlightenment.

There might be something to that, but I'd have to study history better to find out if it holds. The Quakers and Amish seem to be living examples, though.

Posted by: Brain Hertz | October 1, 2009 5:47 PM

...not to mention cask-conditioned Theakston's Old Peculiar.

Old Peculier is already available in a few places here in the Pacific North West ;-).

Dad's Army has been known to make the occasional appearance on cable. Red Dwarf, not so much, although I do still have a few PAL format VHS tapes somewhere...

Posted by: TheGodless | October 1, 2009 5:53 PM

While this indeed comforting news, there is nothing more comforting than knowing that there has never been a religion that has stood the test of time and the march of intellectual progress. It seems that the faithful only have an illogical life of obscurity to look forward to.

Posted by: timgueguen | October 1, 2009 6:05 PM

Reconciling religions to stand together might not quite work the way Feller wants. The obvious example is Japan, where its common for people to claim to be both Buddhist and Shintoist, and where religion really doesn't seem to have much if any regular role in most people's lives.

Posted by: Draken | October 1, 2009 6:19 PM

If you give the Islamic hordes free reign, they'll rid us of bacon.

But there will be shoarma.

Posted by: Sastra | October 1, 2009 6:31 PM

Today, the rise of disaffection is so powerful that different denominations needs to band together to find a shared language of God that can move beyond the fading divisions of the past and begin moving toward a partnership of different-but-equal traditions.

In other words, young people will be attracted to a sort of combination of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, and the UU's. Christianity Lite. Very lite.

Yes, they will -- but it won't work at motivating people to care deeply about their church. It will appeal to them emotionally, and mesh with their values. But to get people worked up enough to really commit, you need to dole out special insider information that nobody else has, promise things nobody else can do, and make it really hard to belong. You need magic powers, revelations, talking in tongues, casting out demons, mystical experiences, being slain in the spirit, people sobbing out confessions, witch burnings, prophesies, rituals, renunciations, and damnation.

And it helps to have drums, or some other rhythmic activity, like chanting, praying, swaying, and whirling in circles till you're dizzy. Also, casseroles taken to your home when you're sick.

You won't attract many, but the young folks you do keep will be practically on fire.

Posted by: jephkay | October 1, 2009 6:33 PM

I do not comment often, but I think the Pharynguloids have got to see this:

http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/10/atheism-vs-scientific-reality.html

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 1, 2009 6:46 PM

@6

He said their attitude was that that'd been the seat of two major religions and then there were the communists and they were all the same -- just people who want to run your life for you.

I've always thought that many of the "isms" were more like religion than either side wants to admit. Someone (could be a god, could be a man-god, could be an idea personified in a man), someone dons the cloak of infallibility, of absolute truth... and off we go.

I'll bet Sam Harris could find similar brain patterns in both religious groups and those that belong to an "ism" -- you know, the increased activity in regions related to fear, reward, and emotion.

Posted by: hje | October 1, 2009 7:01 PM

I would make a guess that lots of young people are actually apatheists

Posted by: RamblinDude | October 1, 2009 7:16 PM

I’m not surprised to see this coming from a Faux News website, of course, but I also expect to see more of this kind of thing in general: the top guns of conflicting faiths appealing for a merger to combat faithlessness. Religion isn’t really about the details; it’s about thought control and subservience. Throw in escape from reality, supernatural promises, group hugs, and smugness, and any one religion pretty much fits in with all the others. That’s why they see free-thinkers as more threatening than a conflicting belief system. That’s why they’ll even consider collaborating across sectarian lines to stamp it out.

How many times have you heard "well, at least they believe in something!"

Posted by: shaunotd | October 1, 2009 7:20 PM

@Kausik Datta:

Rationality, wherefore art thou?

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

Posted by: Nova | October 1, 2009 7:48 PM

4) But these non-believers are not particularly atheist. That number hasn’t budged and stands at less than 1 percent. (Agnostics are similarly less than 1 percent.) Instead, these individuals have a belief in God but no interest in organized religion, or they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition.

The implications for American society are profound. Americans’ relationship with God, which drove many of the country’s great transformations from the pilgrims to the founding fathers, the Civil War to the civil rights movement, is still intact. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe in God or a higher power.

Posted by: Nova | October 1, 2009 8:01 PM

Isn't it odd that separation between church and state might have been the best thing for American religion, leaving religion purely to the unfettered free market. Whereas the Church of England might have been the best thing for British irreligion, an inefficient state firm that didn't respond to changing conditions well and grew lax.

Posted by: Zeno | October 1, 2009 8:12 PM

Eamon @ 20:

Since you asked, EWTN stands for "Eternal Word Television Network." It's a mouthpiece for extremely conservative Catholicism (the one true version of the one true church, as far as they're concerned) and nutbags like Alan Keyes and Patrick Buchanan and Randall Terry are treated with respect as if they were spokesmen for a rational school of thought. I think (hope!) that the people at EWTN may be getting nervous about their pandering to the worst instincts of their listeners, especially when one of their call-in programs got a question about the application of "just war" theory to insurrection: When is it okay to kill civil servants and politicians you don't like?

They're helping to sow the wind so that the nation can read the whirlwind.

P.S.: Thanks for the nice plug, Eamon.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 1, 2009 8:24 PM

And, yet, fuck off, Walton

Yeah, I put him in the killfile over a month ago.

Posted by: scooter | October 1, 2009 8:51 PM

I made it to LA, who's here?

Posted by: jomega | October 1, 2009 9:11 PM

In other news ABC put this up on their "World Newser" blog: Should Cheerleaders Be Allowed to Display Religion-Themed Banners? No poll, But there is a comment thread that could stand some Pharyngulating..
(http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/10/should-cheerleaders-be-allowed-to-display-religionthemed-banners.html)

Posted by: raven | October 1, 2009 9:27 PM

QrazyQat:

No. Calico cats, which are supposedly tools of the devil.

???? I believe some fundies somewhere must believe that. No dumber than believing the earth is 6,000 years old.

It still doesn't make sense and this is one delusion I've never heard of. Sounds like some moron fundie just made up a new superstition. It certainly isn't in the bible which contains no references whatsoever to cats. Another example of fundies Making Stuff Up.

A lot of people have black cats these days. Seems to be a popular coat color.

Posted by: Stogoe | October 1, 2009 9:53 PM

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

It does now, pedants. Eat it.

Posted by: Anton Mates | October 1, 2009 9:55 PM

But these non-believers are not particularly atheist. That number hasn’t budged and stands at less than 1 percent. (Agnostics are similarly less than 1 percent.) Instead, these individuals have a belief in God but no interest in organized religion, or they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition.

This bit is somewhere between blatantly unobservant and outright dishonest. In the first place, the number of atheist/agnostic "nones" certainly has budged. In fact, it's more than doubled. ARIS 1990 reported that atheist and agnostic "nones" put together made up 0.7% of the population; ARIS 2001 found 0.5% agnostic and 0.4% atheist; and ARIS 2008 has 0.9% agnostic and 0.7% atheist.

In the second place, not all atheists and agnostics are part of the "nones;" most of them still identify with a religious tradition even though they apparently don't share its beliefs. This is something ARIS 2008 found out via a new question asking about God's existence; atheists were defined as people who answered "There is no such thing," while agnostics were those who answered "There is no way to know" or "I’m not sure." (Obviously weak atheists might end up in either category.) Measured via this question, 2% of American adults are atheists, 10% are agnostics, and 12% are deists!

So Feiler was wrong to imply that the only non-believers are "nones", and wrong to say that even that subgroup hasn't grown hugely since 1990.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 1, 2009 10:02 PM

Tis Himself @ 38;

"If Marmite is an example of the best part of European culture, then give the Islamic hordes free rein. Perhaps they will rid Europe of that cultural travesty known as Marmite."

Thou shalt not Blaspheme against the marmite! Preferred breakfast spread of Cthulhu himself.

You go after the marmite, you will have a schismatic war on your hands faster than you can say 'yeast extract'. In fact, it would probably be called The Great Yeast War.

They do say you either love it or hate it, but do not presume to force your marmite-phobic bigotry on we few. We happy few. We band of (marmite loving) brothers.

Posted by: llewelly | October 1, 2009 10:12 PM

Bruce Feller:

A shocking new study of Americans’ religious beliefs shows the beginnings of a major realignment in Americans’ relationship with God. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reveals that Protestants now represent half of all Americans, down almost 20 percent in the last twenty years.

The only "shocking" thing here is that so many Americans are taking so long to realize that a relationship with "god" is as one-sided as a relationship with the Tooth Fairy.

Bruce Feller:

In the coming months, America will become a minority Protestant nation for the first time since the pilgrims.

ON NO!!!! The Protestants will be forced to co-operate with the Orthodox, the Catholics, and the other non-protestant Christians in order to pursue their agenda! The Protestants will have to work harder to engage in unilateral bullying of minorities! How terrible.

When Bruce Feller writes about atheists, he writes as if we bring the apocalypse with us. When Glenn Beck rants about atheists, he looks like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming freight train. Given the long and frustrating history of setbacks in the freethought movement, I can't believe it will last, but we've got them on the run.

Posted by: iasasai | October 1, 2009 10:33 PM

"…and that means religion should go."
Abso-smeggin-lutely!

Wake me up when it's gone...

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | October 1, 2009 11:08 PM

Like many others, the following caught my eye:

Today, the rise of disaffection is so powerful that different denominations needs to band together to find a shared language of God that can move beyond the fading divisions of the past and begin moving toward a partnership of different-but-equal traditions.

Translation: Our many millennia of fighting and killing one another is leading many to opt out of our nonsense altogether. To prevent such a catastrophe, we must temporarily join forces to convince those on the cusp of opting out that if they just join our team, they can hate, fight and kill the minority of unbelievers, assured of being on the winning side. Then we can resume our interfaith battles.

Posted by: Eidolon | October 1, 2009 11:41 PM

Stogoe @67

Actually, the word "wherefore" was most likely used incorrectly, based on what Bill S. wrote in the first place (KD @ 64). Pointing this out does not make one a pedant necessarily - some of us just like words and use them with care as to their meanings. Your snappy use of "eat it" however seems to mark you as a potential fuckwit.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | October 2, 2009 12:16 AM

Eidolon:

Actually, the word "wherefore" was most likely used incorrectly, based on what Bill S. wrote in the first place (KD @ 64).

Wherefore do I engage in this debate? Dunno, but for some reason, I'm enjoying it. ;)

Kausik Datta posted an excerpt concerning a purported shift in American public opinion regarding abortion rights, wherein some clowns extolled the news and called for a return to the god of the pilgrims. Kausik then asked, "Rationality, wherefore art thou?"

I can't say that "wherefore" was most likely used incorrectly, though I'm curious as to precisely what Kausik Datta meant. As far as I know, to ask "Wherefore?" is to ask "To what purpose?" It's almost a synonym of "Why?" but has a slightly different connotation.

While it might have been the suspicion of the one who quoted Inigo Montoya, I'm pretty sure Kausik was not mistaking "Wherefore" for "Where," and not asking, "Where is the rationality in the world?" But (and maybe I'm just being dense) I do wonder what Kausik was asking.

To what purpose is our rationality if morons believe such nonsense? Perhaps?

Posted by: DebinOz | October 2, 2009 1:40 AM

Oh dear, I am so doomed.

I have a black cat and a calico cat, I eat Vegemite daily and I am atheist.

Posted by: bastion of sass | October 2, 2009 2:47 AM

Raven wrote:

A lot of people have black cats these days. Seems to be a popular coat color.

A lot of people are emulating Cruella de Vil, only this time with kitties instead of dogs?! How awful! I wasn't aware. Does PETA know about this?

Posted by: Crewvy | October 2, 2009 3:26 AM

I got thru about 3 pages of comments,maybe if some of those correspondents had spent more time in school rather than church,they would be able to string together a coherent sentence.

Posted by: Crewvy | October 2, 2009 3:32 AM

As a kiwi I was brought up on Marmite and I can assure you that Vegemite is a superior product, it is the one true yeast extract,the veritable pope of extracts.
Marmite is just the wannabe scientologist of yeast extracts.

Posted by: Urmensch | October 2, 2009 3:41 AM

Vegemite will do if I can't get Marmite.

Guinness-flavoured Marmite is the apotheosis of yeast extract.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | October 2, 2009 4:11 AM

Everyone deeply concerned with my usage of 'wherefore' - it means 'for what purpose' (as used by Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet)... I wanted to ask, for what purpose rationality exists, if we continue to have such nonsense hitting the fan.

Liveliest Crib @81: *bows head*

Posted by: Aquaria | October 2, 2009 4:33 AM

Who had that paper about the megachurch phenomenon being a sign not of the growth of popularity of religion, but actually a shrinking through consolidation of churches, as small churches slowly shrivel?

It was on here, and a couple of other places.

The paper also demonstrated a correlation between universal health care and precipitous drops in religiosity. I don't remember where I saw it, and I don't have the last name(s) of the author(s).

That might explain the fierce resistance to universal health care in America...

Posted by: Kitty | October 2, 2009 4:56 AM

llewelly

Do you mean to say, that after Blair's decision to follow Bush into Iraq, he's not persona non grata? If that's so, I must say the British are every bit as stupid as Americans are.

No-one in Britain has actually been asked about whether we want Blair to be 'our' President. Possibly because the result would be a resounding 'no'? Democracy in action!

Posted by: Crewvy | October 2, 2009 5:07 AM

Urmensch , L o L, my taste buds await.
Every 6-7yr old in New Zealand knows that our marmite is made from horse and cow hooves,at least that was the word in the playground in the sixties.

Posted by: R. Schauer | October 2, 2009 6:02 AM

There is only one positive attribute that religion has brought society...

Where are you Brother Smoggy?

Posted by: Aquaria | October 2, 2009 6:29 AM

Now if y'all are gonna talk about weird food, I'm going to start talking barbacoa, cabrito and anything else I have to cook by digging a pit in the ground.

And I'll bitch about Taco Bell's corruption of the sublime gordita.

Then I'll start in on tripas, seso and mollejas.

Posted by: Cowcakes | October 2, 2009 6:57 AM

Brownian & Big Bob. I want to hear 666 hail Coopers to redeem your blasphemous statements about the holy food of the gods, Vegemite.

Coopers making a particularly fine brew that shames the shithouse Fosters we feed to tourists.

Posted by: Eidolon | October 2, 2009 7:32 AM

I went to the source of the information mishandled by Faux News

http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

and checked on their methodology. Random phone calls with an open ended question in the survey. Given the social stigma attached to being an atheist, I have to question the percentages obtained. I think a case can be made for the actual numbers being higher overall. Further, I can envision people shading their statements by using 'agnostic' vs. 'atheist'. The article in question wants to raise alarm without actually giving any sort of validity to the opposing view.

BTW Venger@94 - since 'theory' "has considerable history of use" as meaning 'any idea you can pull out of your ass' are we being pedantic when that error is pointed out?

Posted by: shaunotd | October 2, 2009 7:48 AM

@ Kausik Datta #93
In that case, yes, I mistook your intent.

Posted by: Stogoe | October 2, 2009 9:45 AM

"Wherefore" does mean 'to what purpose', but there's a large enough strain of using it to mean 'at what location' that accosting people who use it to mean 'at what location' makes you look the fool.

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 2, 2009 10:07 AM

Posted by: MrFire | October 1, 2009 4:56 PM

truthspeaker @13:

Despite what I said @14, I should acknowledge your point about virtuous Christians trying to do the right thing.

That wasn't actually my point, but I agree those Christians should be acknowledged. My point was that we should acknowledge that Christianity can just as easily be used to justify slavery as to condemn it.

Posted by: Tim Danaher | October 2, 2009 10:29 AM

Omyfuckinggod! We europeans are all going to hell in a handcart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJKOwLIjdcg&feature=player_embedded

Heh, heh.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 2, 2009 10:32 AM

Nice one Tim !

Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 2, 2009 10:50 AM

Risk becoming Europe, who's taken some of our economy and brain trust, adapted with the times, and still finds a way to have a workforce that works less than we do, is happier than we are, and maintained a high standard of living.

Other than letting Muslims dictate freedom of speech in some of the countries in the EU, I fail to see how the items listed above are bad.

Posted by: raven | October 2, 2009 11:19 AM

Hmmm...the more I look at their figures the less reliable they seem, starting with the premise of a total population of 228,182,000 in 2008. They seem to missing about 75,000,000 inhabitants of the USA somewhere,

The 228 million, probably represents adult citizens. No point in asking the kids what they believe.

There are considerable uncertainties in these surveys, depending on how the questions are worded. And atheist is a strong position demonized by much of society. So you have atheists, agnostics, spiritual, pantheists, apatheists, deists and what have you. It makes sense to combine them as Nones or areligious or No Religion.

Then there is the question of how many self described xians really believe everything. A lot of people just check the box labeled xian on automatic pilot because that is what they have been told they are since birth.

IIRC, only 20% of Catholics go to mass. 20% of protestants haven't been in a church in decades and another 20-30% go sporadically.

Then there are the kids and young people. My parent's large church in a well off area has an average age of over 60, mostly female. They have a sunday school. Sometimes there are zero kids for the sunday school.

With the fundies turning xianity into a malevolent force intent on destroying our society, we just have to desperately hope the religion shakes itself apart before it gets us.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 11:34 AM

Come on, Hyperon, speak up. I notice you had nothing to say about matters of life and death. What's so important for you today? More speculation on whether that devil Noam Chomsky believes in compatiblism?

Posted by: raven | October 2, 2009 11:57 AM

(There was a brief jihad-envy mention as well, with a Christian cleric plainly wishing he could invoke violent consequences for anyone who disrespected his message.)

That's dumb. It is evil idiots like that who are destroying US xianity.

When xian became synonymous with liar, hater, ignorant, crazy, and somtimes killer, no one wanted to be one anymore.

"disrespected his message." What message is that? "Do what we say and send us all your money and cutest teen age girls and boys." What a deal.

There really isn't much difference between xian and moslem fundies. We just don't let ours run around loose with stockpiles of guns and bombs. Guns maybe, but not bombs.

Posted by: shatfat | October 2, 2009 12:09 PM

Pierce Butler

(Anybody reading this in the G'ville Florida area who might like to adopt one or more adorably precious little kitties?)

Oh, so YOU're breeding the adorable hellspawn, eh? I wouldn't be so quick to admit to that if I were you.

I'm pretty sure my rescue cat* was abused in her first home (there were children in the home and other cats, and children can be hard on kitties) which would pretty much explain her awful behavior, but lo and behold I read a cat book which opined that red-haired cats, including callies, are infamous for being aggressive. Oh yes. She is aggressive all right. She chewed through a laptop cord and is sniffing around the phone cords. When she's in a bad mood and wants to bite someone, she mewls if you stand out of striking range. You've deprived her of her little fun.

She is absolutely batshit catshit crazy. Cute but deadly. Even my catloving friends were shocked.

*the Alachua County shelter on NE 53rd Ave--oh yeah, I live in Gainesville, FL (I used to post as "not a gator" Before Mab)

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 12:26 PM

Come on, Hyperon, speak up. I notice you had nothing to say about matters of life and death. What's so important for you today? More speculation on whether that devil Noam Chomsky believes in compatiblism?

Posted by: Urmensch | October 2, 2009 12:28 PM

The thing that bugs me about all the scaremongering about Muslims outbreeding the Europeans and taking over (even if there were the data to back it up which there isn't) is why on Earth would that make people return to the churches and religion?
How is my lack of conviction in deities of any kind supposed to be altered?
Should I pretend to believe in Jesus and play-act Christianity?

I just don't get it.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 12:48 PM

But that fact is then frequently linked with completely unjustified extrapolations to claim that Europe is on the way to a Muslim majority - although all past experience shows immigrant populations adapting to the host country's birthrates within decades (see for example Headcount dispels lurid vision of 'Eurabia'.

[citation needed]

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 1:07 PM

Not that I have any obligation to explain myself to you, but I didn't comment in the thread on capital punishment simply because I didn't have anything interesting to say. I agreed with the consensus, and felt no need to preach to the choir.

You made no effort to educate those who were ill-informed and supportive of murder. Fine, but then it's hypocritical for you to complain that there are more important things to discuss than the meaning of "wherefore," particularly when your own hobby-horses are as irrelevant as Muslim women fucking, or so-and-so's opinion about free will.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 1:21 PM

You made no effort to educate those who were ill-informed and supportive of murder. Fine, but then it's hypocritical for you to complain that there are more important things to discuss than the meaning of "wherefore," particularly when your own hobby-horses are as irrelevant as Muslim women fucking, or so-and-so's opinion about free will.

Maybe I'm being a hypocrite, but in my opinion, the global phenomenon of Islamic oppression of women, and the strange story of a famous scientist's quixotic belief in forces that go beyond physics of randomness and determinism, are actually more substantial issues than the meaning of "wherefore".

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 1:36 PM

Maybe I'm being a hypocrite, but in my opinion, the global phenomenon of Islamic oppression of women

Not one of your concerns here, as you've been complaining that these brown people are outbreeding the native whites.

You have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of interest in issues that affect women, and in fact an outright contempt for women, who you like to call "bitches." Like other conservatives, you only bring up women as an excuse to berate Muslims.

and the strange story of a famous scientist's quixotic belief in forces that go beyond physics of randomness and determinism,

Which you have not demonstrated, and which you are obviously lying about.

are actually more substantial issues than the meaning of "wherefore".

Sure, but you're lying about your earlier remarks now. "There are more important things" wasn't what you said.

You said "If only this schoolmarmish enthusiasm about the meaning of words were to carry over to more important topics..." which is only relevant if the people talking about "wherefore" never talk about anything more important.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 2, 2009 1:56 PM

You'll get a number of polls, all with unsettling results, and most suggesting that young Muslims are the worst in the barrel. Frankly I'm surprised someone as knowledgeable as you hasn't heard about this. - Hyperon

Actually, you'll get a pretty mixed bag, as SGBM indicates. Here's another: http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/05/04/smearing-british-muslims-through-opinion-polls/. Moreover, youth radicalism is hardly a new or unusual phenomenon, and in the particular conditions of the past few years, it is unsurprising that it has appeared in the form it has among Muslim youth. I'll bet a lot of these "radical young Muslims" drink, screw and party just like their contemporaries, and will grow out of their "radicalism". I'm not saying there is no cause for concern, but it's just nonsense to suggest that there is any immediate threat, or that "there appears to be no solution". Avoiding hysteria of the "teh Muslins are taking over" variety is indeed part of the solution, and all this requires is a look at real demographics, as opposed to the silly extrapolations of the "Eurabia"-mongers.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 2:21 PM

No, I've demonstrated a lack of interest in trivial issues that affect women.

But of course a misogynist would think that it's trivial whether or not women are insulted for being women.

Now, can you point to any instance on Pharyngula where you have brought up issues concerning women besides as an excuse for your hatred of Muslims?

Just one link will be fine, sufficient to demonstrate that you care about women as anything more than a weapon to use against Muslims.

What are you, Minister of Propaganda? You already linked to that thread; why not let people make up their own minds? Obviously I disagree with your characterizations, and there's nothing substantive to be gained by repeatedly spreading unsupported charges about me.

You keep lying, so I will keep pointing out that you are lying. You don't get to lie without being called on it.

Not really. I just don't think protracted discussions of semantics are generally worthwhile.

I generally agree. But this is irrelevant to your lie, which was that the people here discussing "wherefore" do not discuss more important things.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 2:29 PM

Now, can you point to any instance on Pharyngula where you have brought up issues concerning women besides as an excuse for your hatred of Muslims?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 2:51 PM

And looking over your comments here, the first substantive thing you said was an attack upon Muslim women for having too many children.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 2, 2009 3:04 PM

strange gods, I remind you that there is a reply waiting for you on this thread, in which I ask you to clarify the specifics of what you're advocating.

I have noticed this about you: you're happy to rip into my policy proposals, but when I try to get you to make specific policy suggestions of your own, you suddenly lose interest in the conversation.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 3:07 PM

And looking over your comments here, the first substantive thing you said was an attack upon Muslim women for having too many children.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 3:14 PM

So you admit that you cannot demonstrate any interest in women's well-being except as a cudgel with which to beat Muslims.

You're off your gourd if you can't see what's wrong with this. Not only are you demanding that I actually take the trouble to search for links to absolve myself of your baseless charges -- you're apparently crazy enough to assume that there exists a post on this blog representing every single position I hold important.

Hyperon, we never see you never talk about women except to call them bitches or attack Muslims. It's a reasonable inference that you do not care about them, except as an excuse to hate Muslims, and that you are comparatively unconcerned about the situation of British women. All the evidence you have made available to us lines up that way. Any counterevidence is welcome.

Posted by: amphiox | October 2, 2009 3:17 PM

re: Walton #149

Two men are trapped in a burning building. Tall flames surround them on all sides. The air is filling with smoke and they are starting to choke on it.

Man A takes out a container of gasoline, and starts to unscrew the top.

Man B: "What are you doing?"

Man A: "I'm going to throw this gas on the fire close to the wall to our right. It will cause an explosion that will blow a hole in the wall."

Man B: "The explosion will kill us both."

Man A: "Do you have an alternate idea for getting out?"

Man B: "I haven't thought of one yet."

Man A: "Then shut up. You are not entitled to criticize my idea unless you have an alternative of your own."

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 3:20 PM

OK, my comment above was a little unfair. I apologise.

It's totally fine! It can be frustrating when an interesting conversation comes to an unexpected halt. And this one was my fault.

Posted by: Steven Mading | October 2, 2009 3:42 PM

Any time some idiot tries to claim that the US founders were implementing their new democratic republic because that's the Christian Way and they were doing it specifically because of Christian reasons, then I figure the best counter to that is NOT to just point out how what the founders had to say on the subject themselves proves them wrong - those facts don't seem to convince them. How about this tactic. Just mention one number:

1756 years.

Alleged start of the Christian religion as a separate entity from Judaism - the alleged resurrection of Jesus: 33 AD

US constitution ratified: 1789 AD

1789 - 33 = 1756.

If a representative democracy is somehow a Christian concept, and somehow the logical outcome of Christianity, then why were there 1756 years of dictatorships and monarchies under Christendom first?

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 2, 2009 3:53 PM

Europe is a fine, successful place, the thriving heartland of Western thought, and they do very well with a diminished religious influence.

I'm beginning to suspect PZ Myers is the atheist equivalent of a Poe.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 4:08 PM

There's your pretended interest in Muslim women, again, paired predictably with your complete disinterest in the situation of most British women.

I know I'm not popular around here, but is it really fair that he can get away with derailing the thread by continually posting unsupported slander that has nothing to do with the thread's topic, or any substantive topic being discussed? Make no mistake, if I were the one doing this -- derailing the thread with baseless speculation about someone's motives -- I would be sent to the dungeon before you could say "lickedy split".

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 2, 2009 4:12 PM

Pilty has the same paranoia about Muslims as Hyperon. They should get together off-line to discuss the matter.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 4:19 PM

So you say, as usual without a particle of evidence.

The evidence is that you never talk about the situation of women except as a reason to hate Muslims, you call women bitches but you scream when someone calls you a cracker, and you resist the opportunity to discuss the current oppression of British women. This data is not parsimoniously explained by an interest in women's well-being.

I would be sent to the dungeon before you could say "lickedy split".

Ah, yes, because there is an unfounded prejudice against Hyperon here. That explains your complaint of demagoguery. No one has any good reason to be dismissive of your nonsense, and I'm just capitalizing on unfair prejudices against you. It all makes sense now. You're right, this is pretty much a hate crime in progress.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 4:28 PM

Muslims are a minuscule threat to us. Christian creationists are controlling a substantial portion of the government.

A little perspective is called for. And if you weren't a crank, you might be able to find some.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 2, 2009 4:36 PM

Shut up about the birth rate of Muslims and acknowledge they are all good British citizens.

Except for listening to all that gangsta rap. This song even has simulated gunshots.

I shouldn't even have to post links demonstrating their savagery.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 4:40 PM

The evidence is that you never talk about the situation of women except as a reason to hate Muslims, you call women bitches but you scream when someone calls you a cracker, and you resist the opportunity to discuss the current oppression of British women. This data is not parsimoniously explained by an interest in women's well-being.

Since many of us usually only feel the urge to post when we believe we have a new point to contribute to the discussion, it is unsettling how much you're prepared to deduce from the mere absence (or purported absence) of posts by me on certain topics.

Posted by: Endor | October 2, 2009 4:45 PM

"I called SC a "haughty bitch" after being insulted and condescended to by her repeatedly. Hardly amounts to "calling women bitches"

LOL. It's like Comedy for Bigots. He called a woman a bitch, but that doesn't mean he calls women bitches.

LOL. Classic.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 4:50 PM

I called SC a "haughty bitch" after being insulted and condescended to by her repeatedly. Hardly amounts to "calling women bitches".

Calling a woman a bitch is sexist behavior. If you want to insult a person, you can do it without insulting their gender.

You believe it is appropriate to call women bitches. It's just a fact. You demonstrated it by your actions.

Since many of us usually only feel the urge to post when we believe we have a new point to contribute to the discussion,

You have the opportunity right now to talk about the oppression of women in Britain. You never bring it up. You only want to hate Muslims.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 4:56 PM

Eventually you might sprout some balls.

Patriarchy as a bludgeon to attack a man for not performing his culturally defined gender role. Keep digging.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 5:00 PM

Patriarchy as a bludgeon to attack a man for not performing his culturally defined gender role. Keep digging.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 5:05 PM

Another factor is that I'm about a hundred years ahead of Strange Gods. His parochial attitude, according to which America is the only country that matters,

#136 #140 #146 #153 #160 #167 #177

I'm a citizen of the world before I'm a citizen of my country.

Hyperon, there isn't much you can do about the way Muslims treat Muslims halfway across the world. But there are women being systematically oppressed right there in your home country, right now, who could use your political assistance. Your indifference to them is quite telling.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 5:09 PM

I don't think that's a fair comparison, in and of itself. Muslims are not a racial or ethnic group; they are a religious group.

And the Ku Klux Klan terrorized the Catholics. You're giving the bigots too much credit if you pretend that they care about any such distinctions.

Hardline Islam is just as dangerous, if not more so, as fundamentalist Christianity.

Not at the levels at which it exists in the UK. Don't fall into your prejudices without looking at the Gallup poll cited earlier.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 5:12 PM

Hey look, now Hyperon denies that there are such things as gender roles.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 2, 2009 5:21 PM

Hyperon @ 168;

"Creationists, it seems, are the veritable enemy of civilization. They are Mordor and Pharyngula is Gondor. Muslims, though, aren't even worth mentioning. Anybody who's bothered about Muslims is a paranoid racist."

I think part of the problem here is that you seem to be conflating Muslims as a broad social and religious grouping with the Islamist extremist fringe. What one might call 'Islamo-fascists' if I may use such a charged term.

While I carry no torch for any kind of woo, it is somewhat unhelpful to seek to tar every member of a highly hetrogenous culture with the same brush as the very worst individuals drawn from that grouping. That is one glass house none of us should be throwing stones in.

There are wholly legitimate concerns about the rise of militancy in European politics and culture. While a proportion of this militancy is Islamic and does have disturbing connections with violent fundementalist groups like Al Qaeda, we are also seeing a contiguous rise in far right groups such as the BNP which have the potential to present an equally grave threat to the rule of law.

The problem is that away from what you might call the corridors of power, the politics of the street seems to be experiencing a general drift away from moderate, centrist politics to the political fringes and in particular the far and (in some cases) religious right.

While I respect your right to your own opinion, I would suggest that focussing overmuch on the radicalisation of certain elements of Islamic youth, to the exclusion of other forms of extremism, will lead to a skewed perspective on this issue and could easily be misinterpreted as race bias.

Incidentally, I like your Lord of the Rings reference. Personally I preder to think of Pharyngula as Rivendell or the Groves of Lothlorien, and creationism as Grima Wormtongue. Or more specifically, as the poison Grima whispers into the ear of Theoden.

As Gandalf said;

"I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm."

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 2, 2009 5:24 PM

Incidentally, I like your Lord of the Rings reference. Personally I preder to think of Pharyngula as Rivendell or the Groves of Lothlorien, and creationism as Grima Wormtongue. Or more specifically, as the poison Grima whispers into the ear of Theoden.

As Gandalf said;

"I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm."

You do know Tolkien was a conservative Catholic?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 2, 2009 5:30 PM

"Eventually you might sprout some balls."

While I do not speak from personal experience, having never met him or her, I am sure that Strange Gods has a perfectly nice pair of testicles or ovaries. Even if, by some unfortunate mishap, or genetic condition, this person is absent gonads this in no way invalidates their arguments.

Personally, I have always favoured thinking with my brain over trying to think with my genitals.

Maybe that's where I have been going wrong all these years . . .

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 2, 2009 5:34 PM

"Eventually you might sprout some balls."

While I do not speak from personal experience, having never met him or her, I am sure that Strange Gods has a perfectly nice pair of testicles or ovaries. Even if, by some unfortunate mishap, or genetic condition, this person is absent gonads this in no way invalidates their arguments.

No, Hyperon was addressing that statement to me, not to strange gods.

He was calling me a coward. Maybe he's right.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 2, 2009 5:35 PM

how is this relevant? are we not allowed to read fiction written by godbots, even when it happens to be good fiction? or are you just not liking Gregory's heterodox and amusing re-interpretation of the story?

No, I just found it ironic. That was all.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 2, 2009 5:36 PM

Just weighing in on one of Hyperbolon's 'facts': "Despite that most Muslims are creationists."

This study of six primarily Islamic countries gives no more than 60% of respondents in any country saying "Evolution could not possibly be true", which is only 10-20% more than what you'd get if you similarly surveyed the US. Notably, only 28% of Kazakhstanis thought evolution was false. I share this so we're clear as to what Hyperbolon thinks constitutes 'most' of some particular group.

Of course, these are just the results of a study published in Science which I found by Googling. Thus, this study is clearly flawed and so the conclusions drawn are much less significant than the ones Hyperbolon draws from "what everybody obviously knows".

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 2, 2009 5:45 PM

Jadehawk @ 192;

"how is this relevant? are we not allowed to read fiction written by godbots, even when it happens to be good fiction? or are you just not liking Gregory's heterodox and amusing re-interpretation of the story?"

Thanks for the complement, Jadehawk. I have always rather liked Tolkien's work. I am a huge fantasy and Sci-Fi geek and I must confess that I have never really considered the religious or philosophical affilation of the author to be all that important a consideration when selecting reading material. A good yarn is a good yarn, even if woven by one soaked in woo.

On the subject of confession, I am also rather enjoying Legend of the Seeker at the moment, but that might be because I am a bit of a Bridget Regan fan. I have also begun reading the Sword of Truth novels the series is based on and I have no idea what Terry Goodkind's beliefs may or may not be. Even if he is a rabid xian, I will continue to read his work.

Walton @ 191;

"You do know Tolkien was a conservative Catholic?"

I did not know this. It is always interesting to learn new things. It will not change my outlook on the books, however. I do know that the Lord of the Rings is loosely based on Nordic mythology and folktales and Tolkien himself was a professor of European languages. This is why he created such complex runic language systems for his novels.

Just because I have read the books it does not mean that I run around shouting the praises of Thor during every lightening storm I come across. By the same principle, I can read and enjoy the books without endorsing the personal belief system of the author.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 2, 2009 5:51 PM

Walton @ 195;

"No, Hyperon was addressing that statement to me, not to strange gods.

He was calling me a coward. Maybe he's right."

My apologies. I am sure that both you and Strange Gods both have perfectly serviceable gonads.

I may not agree with all (or even most) of what you say Walton, but you are far too forthright in your opinions to be reasonably called a coward.

At least you speak your mind, even when your libertarian views might draw some flak.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 6:05 PM

What's relevant, Hyperon, is that in the Gallup poll, 89% of British Muslims said attacks on civilian targets could never be justified.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 2, 2009 6:12 PM

Something rotten..

La douce France.

"... some corner of a foreign field"

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 2, 2009 6:16 PM

"... some corner of a foreign field"

That is rude, Pilty. We know how much it bothers you Christians when they move your idols around.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 2, 2009 6:23 PM

Just goes to prove, life isn't like it was in the good old days. You must really miss nostalgia.

Ah, I remember the quiet, halcyon days of Alberta, before they built a creationism museum in Big Valley. What wondrous times those were; a Stanley Cup in every Colosseum and a Grey Cup in every Commonwealth Stadium.

Barbarians at the gates indeed, eh Pilty?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 2, 2009 6:25 PM

Piltdown, why are you linking to the BNP hate site?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 6:30 PM

I think you know the answer to that question.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 6:31 PM

I think it's because we don't appreciate the danger white indigenous people are in.

There now, that sounds more pleasant.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 6:35 PM

Ah, right...so that's why you think 11% of British Muslims wanting to blow us up is actually a good thing.

Predictably like the a racist crank you are, you took the bait without reading the actual poll.

Only 92% of the British public said attacks on civilian targets could never be justified.

But you freaked out because it's those people.

Posted by: E.V. | October 2, 2009 6:40 PM

Oh the handwringing earnestness of the conservative whimper:

We must stop progress in its tracks! We must return to a kinder, gentler age that never really existed - except in our privileged, blinkered, solipsistic and xenophobic imagination. By God, Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best were more real than reality, decent people feared God and brown people knew their place. There's no place like home... there's no place like home...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 2, 2009 6:44 PM

Hyperon definitely reminds of southern racist crackers. I've met a few in my day. They think only they have big enough gonads to speak their minds. What there is of them. Hyperon shows the same paranoia, but like them, can't admit it either.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 2, 2009 6:47 PM

*note to self* I should probably reduce my frequency of posts relating to testicles. People are going to start thinking I am obsessed.

Where do you get this "going to start" idea?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 2, 2009 6:49 PM

Sure, Fuckbrain:

Your first homework is to figure out why you're a fucking retard if you get "11% of British Muslims wanting to blow us up" from "89% of British Muslims said attacks on civilian targets could never be justified", you dumb shithead.

Hint: you might want to consider what a range of values there is in the idea "attacks on civilian targets are sometimes justified" and how many non-Muslims might agree with that statement.

If you need a further clue, ask yourself what the average white Briton thinks of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the firebombing of Berlin, and whether the fact that a white Briton who disagree with "attacks on civilian targets are never justified" because s/he thinks the nuking of Hiroshima was necessary means they want to blow up every Japanese, you fucking moron.

That was a freebie. Further tutoring from me will cost you $65/hour. (I'd charge less, but there's so much work to do with you. And I'd want some sort of psychological evaluation explaining how I'm supposed to handle your obvious learning disability.)

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 6:53 PM

Predictably like the a racist crank you are, you took the bait without reading the actual poll.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 2, 2009 6:57 PM

'Tis Himself @ 225;

" *note to self* I should probably reduce my frequency of posts relating to testicles. People are going to start thinking I am obsessed.

Where do you get this "going to start" idea?"

Curses! They noticed!

*Vanishes in a theatrical puff of smoke, with one last yell of 'testicles' echoing around the thread*

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 7:00 PM

If you think "bait" is appropriate in this discussion, you really have no intention of making progress.

I'm afraid hope and progress already left you far behind.

The statistic of approximately 10% of British Muslims wanting to blow us up (in some sense)

is a non sequitur, as Brownian kindly pointed out to you.

There is nothing to talk about when only 92% of the general British public believe that attacks on civilian targets are never justified. Your focus on Muslims anyway is simple xenophobia.

If you think it's fitting to call me a "crank", you really have no idea about typical opinions in Europe, where anti-Islamic sentiment is increasingly widespread.

Argumentum ad populum. You are a racist crank, no better than Nick Griffin or the white nationalists in my neighborhood. It's disturbing that you take comfort in their numbers.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 7:06 PM

I don't know. I'm not comfortable with internet diagnoses. I told the eclipse-is-the-eye-of-God guy what he was experiencing only because I thought it might help him. There is no way for us to help Hyperon. He obviously is a narcissist, whether or not in the clinical sense. But in any case he is entirely incapable of self-reflection, so telling him this won't do any good.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 2, 2009 7:08 PM

Hyperon @ 229;

"If you think it's fitting to call me a "crank", you really have no idea about typical opinions in Europe, where anti-Islamic sentiment is increasingly widespread. Maybe you should go and watch Jon Stewart or something, because you clearly know little of the world beyond your own country. "

I am a Brit, Hyperon and to be honest I do not recognise any widespread rise of 'anti-Islamic sentiment' in the general populous of the UK or broader EU. Certainly there are elements of the tabloid press who like to become hysterical over the 'muslim menace' on a regular basis, and of course there are far right groups who seek to reinforce their core support by demonising a convenient other. Such opinions, however, hardly constitute a monolithic expression of a singular public opinion across Europe.

Most people have some level of concern over fundamentalist Islam, but would consider generic 'anti-Islamic sentiment' as little more than thinly veiled rascism that seeks validation from the atrocities committed by a tiny minority of the Islamic community.

Furthermore, I rather like John Stewart. Political satire is entertining and always useful in ensuring that the politicos and talking heads do not take themselves too seriously.

Posted by: monado | October 2, 2009 7:14 PM

RamziD [#62], it sounds exactly like a reluctance to label. You see it in women who say, "I'm not a feminist, but.... of course I expect to get equal pay for work of equal value!" In other words, they're feminists without the courage to say so.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 7:15 PM

And even Nick Griffin has a better grasp of history than you do.

I'm reminded of your insistence that there was "nothing racist" about not hiring the children of immigrants.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 2, 2009 7:20 PM

Brownian @ 240;

"Nice waffling there, pansy. So, do you just tuck that empty scrotum into a trouser leg to keep it from flapping about, or do you have some sort of prosthetic?"

I thought we had stopped talking about testicles. I got the impression I was creeoing people out . . .

Seriously Brownian, don't go there. It's beneath you.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 7:21 PM

Repeatedly I'm called stupid, and then when I post a corresponding insult, all of a sudden I'm a narcissistic ego-demon.

Well, what would you like? You are awfully stupid. The understandable retort is "no, you're the one who's stupid." Not "in fact I'm smarter than everyone or mostly everyone here."

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 7:24 PM

Does it now? You have a problem with white ethnicity? A self-hating white maybe?

I love you, Piltdown Man. Don't ever change.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 2, 2009 7:31 PM

Brownian @ 234:

Why does 'Christian' and 'mosque' enter into this?
How do you feel about a cemetery being ploughed up to make way for some other public building?
As for me, I couldn't care less. As I noted earlier, those stone talismans are apparently important to Christians, so I can see why their being moved might irritate you. Ever consider giving up the idol worship? Jesus and his dad don't like it when you fawn over things like tombstones and bodies. Put it right up there as one of the first of the Ten Commandments.
Oh, I see why the mosque is so upsetting: it's that persecution again.
Fuck these cracker dolts: I've got beer to pursue.
Or maybe I'm coming to get you Pilty, with my darkie horde.
Boo-ooo-ooo-oo-oo-ooo-oo-ooo-ooo-oo!

Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 2, 2009 7:33 PM

I misinterpreted the statistic about the 92% of Muslims being against bombing of innocents. Big deal.

amazing how you have this strange, unexplained tendency to misinterpret things to always mean the worst possible thing when non-whites are concerned, but completely fail to do so when whites are concerned.

but hey, I'm sure that's just coincidence.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 7:37 PM

I don't know anything about Piltdown Man, but intuitively it seems to me that a large proportion of supposed trolls, or at least people you love to hate on this blog, are Brits. Maybe that should give you food for thought. Maybe you should start to learn that not every subject of discussion in the cosmos can be shoehorned into the quaint American conception of Conservatives versus Liberals.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 2, 2009 7:42 PM

How do you feel about a Christian cemetery being ploughed up to make way for a mosque?

They're Moving Father's Grave To Build A Sewer

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 7:43 PM

I don't know anything about Piltdown Man, but intuitively it seems to me that a large proportion of supposed trolls, or at least people you love to hate on this blog, are Brits. Maybe that should give you food for thought.

Oh dear. Does Pharyngula have an anti-British bias?

What say Gregory?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 7:47 PM

That's a no from Gregory. What say Knockgoats? Walton? maureen brian?

Posted by: John Morales | October 2, 2009 7:48 PM

Hyperon,

I don't know anything about Piltdown Man, but intuitively it seems to me that a large proportion of supposed trolls, or at least people you love to hate on this blog, are Brits.

Heh, Hyperon is basing opinion on intuition again.

Care to name some of these other "supposed trolls, or at least people you love to hate on this blog" and their nationality?

Care to quantify the degree of disproportionality?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 2, 2009 7:52 PM

Oh dear. Does Pharyngula have an anti-British bias?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 2, 2009 7:54 PM

strange gods before me @ 257;

"Oh dear. Does Pharyngula have an anti-British bias?

What say Gregory?"

My dear, fellow Pharyngulites. I have never excperienced any hint of anti-British bias on these threads (apart from the great Marmite Heresy, of course). I have only infrequently been called a 'limey' or a 'pom' and, since I rather like fruit, I consider these terms complimentary. I myself have been known to affectionately refer to my transatlantic cousins as 'colonials' on the threads of this hallowed blog from time to time. No offence was intended and (so far as I know, having received no additional death threats as of late) none was taken.

My excentricities are put up with. My British spelling of words and my use of British terminology such as 'bonnet' and 'boot' in place of 'hood' anbd 'trunk' go by with little or no comment. I am even allowed to hum 'Rule Britannia' without being accused of Imperialism or being drowned out by 'The Star-Spangled Banner.'

Overall, Pharyngula gets the official Gregory Greenwood two thumbs up for tolerence of the sons and daughters of Albion.

Posted by: gyeong-hwa | October 2, 2009 7:56 PM

Whops. In my previous post, "you" should be "I".

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 7:59 PM

Oh dear. Does Pharyngula have an anti-British bias?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 2, 2009 8:05 PM

I am even allowed to hum 'Rule Britannia' without being accused of Imperialism or being drowned out by 'The Star-Spangled Banner.'

Never once has the expression "perfidious Albion" been used when discussing Messrs Greenwood, Walton or Knockgoats.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 2, 2009 8:08 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5h4PFBuzvw

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 2, 2009 8:12 PM

Piltdown Man @ 266;

"How does striking out the word "white" and replacing it with "indigenous" relate to such an observation?"

This could be a reference to the fact that the populous of the UK can no longer be considered exclusively white. A great many born-and-bred Brits are from other ethnic groups. They are no less British because of this. Unless your name is Enoch Powell, of course.

"There's no difference. Islam was and is a threat. Communism was a threat and may be so again. The fact that fascists and Zionists say so doesn't make it false."

Communism as practiced by the USSR was a threat, but Islam is not entirely comparable to the Soviet Union. Even accepting a potential 'threat' from Islam, your comment seems to be endorsing a return to Macarthyite-style witchhunts where anyone the administration does not like is fair game. Just slap a scary lable on them and have at you! A great many lives and careers were ruined in just this manner. This is not a period of history anyone should be eager to return to.

"So it would seem."

Slippery statistics again. Just because a person is born into a certain religion does not automatically mean that they are pre-destined to remain wedded to it for the rest of their lives.

"Last I heard, Islam was a religion, not a pigmentation."

Actually, I was refering to your referencve to 'self-hating white' rather than to Islam in this case. My apologies if my meaning was unclear.

"That's a reasonable position and one with which I have a large measure of sympathy. That doesn't mean one may not valued or defend one's ethnic identity, whatever it is."

I am not saying that a person is not allowed to maintain their ethnic identity, merely that ethnicity need not be a cause of conflict betwen people. A person can treasure their cultural heritage without devaluing that of others or fearing any different culture as an inherently corrupting force. It is my humble opinion that a culture that is not strong enough to survive unfettered contact with other cultures is not strong enough to survive at all.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 8:15 PM

Heh. What was a definite assertion has been retconned into an idle wondering as to 'whether'.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 2, 2009 8:18 PM

gyeong-hwa @ 270:

There's no difference. Islam was and is a threat. Communism was a threat and may be so again. The fact that fascists and Zionists say so doesn't make it false. Actually, the fact that fascists and Zionists says it brings up concerns on bias, due to their political/religious/cultural agenda.

Jesus Christ*, everyone's got an agenda of some sort.

They may very well be making shit up just to push their own idea on the fearful public.

Maybe, although they wouldn't get very far if the public weren't fearful in the first place -- because of what they see happening around them.

(*sit nomen domini benedictum)

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 8:20 PM

SGBM, #276:

Yes, good point there. I think one essential difference though is that Britain now has state-funded Islamic faith schools, which expedite the segregation and the consequent social discord.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 8:22 PM

I'm not a fan of religion. But I don't use that as an excuse for racism and say that we shouldn't hire them because of it.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 8:24 PM

So I get it now. Last I checked, all is good between the Commonwealth and the USA on this blog. What a stupid thing to write. I think your intuition is broken.

Posted by: John Morales | October 2, 2009 8:29 PM

Hyperon:

@253: Maybe you should start to learn that not every subject of discussion in the cosmos can be shoehorned into the quaint American conception of Conservatives versus Liberals.

@269: I'm musing about whether Americans have a tendency to "shoehorn" non-Americans' political positions into the framework of "Republicans versus Democrats".

[me: What was a definite assertion has been retconned into an idle wondering as to 'whether'.]

Enough of this childish nonsense. Statements that begin with "maybe" are hardly "definite assertions", in any case.

The conditional applied to whether those you addressed "should start to learn" that which you asserted, i.e. "that not every subject of discussion in the cosmos can be shoehorned into the quaint American conception of Conservatives versus Liberals", not to your assertion.

Your intent was clear, as was your backpedalling, and as is your futile and disingenuous attempt at exculpation.

Posted by: Kamaka | October 2, 2009 8:32 PM

@ 285

I read your post, and you made a stupid, baseless assertion.

Posted by: Nanu Nanu | October 2, 2009 8:37 PM

I'm having a bit of trouble: my killfile doesn't seem to work unless the person has a link in their name. Unfortunately (or fortunately, thinking of what he'd put in it) Piltdown Man doesn't have one. Any one else having this problem?

Posted by: Hyperon | October 2, 2009 8:48 PM

Your intent was clear, as was your backpedalling, and as is your futile and disingenuous attempt at exculpation.

It's clear to me now that, short of being a sheep, the only way I can avoid hounding is by talking like Lieutenant Commander Data. Every sentence I write must be rigorously stated. I'm not allowed even the most minuscule inaccuracy or ambiguity -- otherwise, the most uncharitable interpretation is seized upon, and exploited for a half dozen or more posts. It's not easy (or enjoyable) to be an android, especially after arguing all day against a tedious chorus of unyielding slander. (Most of it bullshit -- logical slips are OK as long as you're not Hyperon.)

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 8:55 PM

I wonder where he thinks this supposed prejudice against him comes from. Does he think we don't like his name? Besides the name "Hyperon" and everything he's ever said at Pharyngula, we have nothing else to judge him by. We can't dislike the look of him. We can't think that his voice is annoying. We can only be judging his words.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 2, 2009 9:02 PM

well, I'll give Hyperon one thing: while the European xenophobia expresses itself primarily in terms of skin color+religion, the most common form of American xenophobia expresses itself primarily in terms of skin color+language;

See the links at #290.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 2, 2009 9:09 PM

Hyperon, your avowed racism is your racists words, which you keep repeating. The only way to disavow them is to STFU. For a decent period of time, like say a month or two. You are like AG used to be. The longer he talked, the more he turned people off to libertarianism due to his extreme outlook on it. You do the same with whatever points you try to make.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 2, 2009 9:12 PM

Gregory Greenwood @ 275:

... the populous [sic] of the UK can no longer be considered exclusively white. A great many born-and-bred Brits are from other ethnic groups. They are no less British because of this.

Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not. Consider ... a white European or black African couple settle in Japan and acquire Japanese citizenship (assuming that's possible). They have a child who grows up in Japan, learns to speak Japanese and acquires a deep appreciation of & respect for traditional Japanese culture. Would that child of white European or black African parents be a Japanese person? Suppose he instead came to feel rancour and contempt for traditional Japanese culture on account of its racist and imperialist past? Would he still be a Japanese?

Whatever one's answers to these questions, it seems to me that the best way to minimize ethnic hostility is to foster a sense of common human dignity rather than to pretend ethnic differences don't exist -- or worse, celebrate every ethnicity except that of the indigenous majority.

Unless your name is Enoch Powell, of course.

And what of the many thousands of ordinary working-class folk who demonstrated in support of Enoch Powell in the 1960s and 1970s?

Did you see the recent BBC documentary on Enoch Powell? To its credit it admitted there was massive popular support for his anti-immigration stance, but was quick to point out that a backlash eventually came from "a cross-section of British society ranging from" - wait for it - "radical students to middle-class liberals"! Some cross-section. Ironically quite a few of my liberal friends (some of my best friends are liberals) privately admit old Enoch had a point.

Enoch Powell had some cranky ideas but he was also a penetrating and lucid intellect. Here he is speaking in 1976:

"Yet even though that picture is dark and darkening, there is one factor which has not yet been injected. I do not know whether it will be tomorrow, or next year, or in five years; but it will come. That factor is firearms and explosives. ... At first there will be horrified astonishment, and inquiry as to what we have done wrong that such things should be happening. Then there will be feverish endeavour to find methods to allay the supposed grievances which lie behind the violence. Then follows exploitation by those who use violence of the ascendancy they have thus gained over the majority and over authority. The thing goes forward, acting and reacting, until a position is reached in which — I shall dare say it — compared with those areas, Belfast today will seem an enviable place."

Ecce vates!

I am not saying that a person is not allowed to maintain their ethnic identity, merely that ethnicity need not be a cause of conflict betwen people.

It need not but it often is. Sometimes there is an irreconcilable clash between values and cultures, simple as that.

A person can treasure their cultural heritage without devaluing that of others ...

I don't disdain the cultural heritage of Islam. I just note that it is a radically different cultural heritage from that of Europe and therefore question the wisdom of allowing the development of large, assertive Muslim communities in the European heartlands.

... or fearing any different culture as an inherently corrupting force.

I don't regard any different culture as inimical; I regard some different cultures as inimical. And I find that cause for regret.

It is my humble opinion that a culture that is not strong enough to survive unfettered contact with other cultures is not strong enough to survive at all.

Survival of the fittest, eh? What if the only way to survive "unfettered contact" with the other is to fight and defeat the other? Or is such a scenario inconceivable to you?

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 2, 2009 9:31 PM

strange gods before me @ 284:

Racist Europeans often like to use "indigenous" as a euphemism for "white."

Why should one need a euphemism for "white"?

gyeong-hwa @ 288:

Maybe, although they wouldn't get very far if the public weren't fearful in the first place -- because of what they see happening around them.

You mean what the media has feed to them.

Could you possibly be any more condescending?

The media has a tendancy to hilight the worst of things.

Some media outlets do, it's true. Many others rigorously enforce the party line that a thousand flowers are peacefully blooming in the multi-cultural garden.

'Tis Himself @ 292:

Just for your information, Show of Hands (Knightly and Beer) get annoyed when fascists and racists try to twist their lyrics.

Good for them. I daresay fascists and racists like to see fascism and racism in their lyrics. I daresay many liberals do too. I, of course, wasn't imputing any such thing.

But as a good Christian and Catholic, that doesn't bother you.

Actually I'm a very bad Catholic but I know enough to know that racial hatred is incompatible with the Faith.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | October 2, 2009 9:31 PM

Piltdown wrote:

I don't disdain the cultural heritage of Islam. I just note that it is a radically different cultural heritage from that of Europe and therefore question the wisdom of allowing the development of large, assertive Muslim communities in the European heartlands.

Translation: stay where you are and don't bring your miserable, archaic, hypocritical anti-human religion with you - and that's Catholicism's job!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 2, 2009 9:44 PM

Whatever one's answers to these questions, it seems to me that the best way to minimize ethnic hostility is to foster a sense of common human dignity rather than to pretend ethnic differences don't exist -- or worse, celebrate every ethnicity except that of the indigenous majority.

you're confusing "race", nationality and ethnicity again. which indigenous ethnicity of Britain shall we honor: celtic? saxon? viking? french? gaelic? welsh?

or do you just mean "white british", which is a race descriptor, not an ethnic one; or do you maybe even mean what you actually used in your example, i.e. nationality; at which point everyone with a british passport is british.

Britain has never been a place of homogenous ethnicity, and your attempt at lumping all white people into a single ethnic group is pathetic.

And incidentally, Japan is actually made up of several ethnic groups as well; except that from over here, they all look Japanese, don't they? [/sarcasm]

Posted by: Rorschach | October 2, 2009 10:46 PM

@ 291,

I'm having a bit of trouble: my killfile doesn't seem to work unless the person has a link in their name

Interesting ! I never noticed that before, but it's true.Wish that strange gods character would get a link so I can finally shup him up...:P

Posted by: Ray | October 3, 2009 12:29 AM

nanu nanu @291 & Rorschach @ 309:
I was having a similar problem and just updated to the latest killfile script version, (firefox: tools/greasemonkey/user script commands/get latest killfile script). That seemed to fix things. Hope that helps.
Cheers & Happy Monkey,
Ray

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 3, 2009 4:26 AM

Jadehawk @ 307:

you're confusing "race", nationality and ethnicity again. which indigenous ethnicity of Britain shall we honor: celtic? saxon? viking? french? gaelic? welsh?

We should honour of them (although "Celtic" and "Gaelic" are virtually synonymous and "Welsh" is a subset of that).

or do you just mean "white british", which is a race descriptor, not an ethnic one;... Britain has never been a place of homogenous ethnicity, and your attempt at lumping all white people into a single ethnic group is pathetic.

Ethnicity certainly cannot be reduced to race but neither can it be entirely abstracted from it. Race is one element in ethnic self-identification. And while it it true that Britain has never been ethnically homogenous, I would suggest that those of Celtic, Saxon, Viking and Norman descent had & have more in common with each other than they do with Muslims (not least Christianity).

And incidentally, Japan is actually made up of several ethnic groups as well; except that from over here, they all look Japanese, don't they? [/sarcasm]

Actually, yes they do all look Japanese to a non-Japanese (at any rate to a non-Japanese with no specialist knowledge of Japanese ethnology). And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Japanese people were typically more aware of the physical similarities between European ethnicities than the differences. This is why race is an element of ethnic identity.

And I notice you scrupulously avoided answering my question regarding hypothetical European or African immigrants to Japan. Do you seriously think they would ever be considered Japanese by the locals just because they might have a piece of paper declaring them to be citizens of Japan?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 3, 2009 4:38 AM

My British spelling of words and my use of British terminology such as 'bonnet' and 'boot' in place of 'hood' anbd 'trunk' go by with little or no comment.

As does my eccentric indiscriminate mixture of American and British spelling.

I am even allowed to hum 'Rule Britannia' without being accused of Imperialism or being drowned out by 'The Star-Spangled Banner.'

Hmm. I'll test that hypothesis. :-)

When Britain first, at heav'n's command, Arose from out the azure main, Arose, arose from out the azure main, This was the charter, the charter of the land And guardian angels sung this strain: Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves, Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Posted by: John Morales | October 3, 2009 5:01 AM

Piltdown, Walton, I wonder what might've been if the Romans hadn't conquered and enslaved Britain, and hadn't put the Druids to the sword and burnt down their groves.

Ah well, plenty of the old symbolism made its way into the new Christianity. :)

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 3, 2009 7:27 AM

There are a billion Muslims in Britain now?

No, you're just hating them because they exist, wherever they exist, and the whole "British culture" thing is a pretense for your hatred.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 3, 2009 7:34 AM

sgbm the humour impaired,

man just take it easy for once !

Posted by: Rorschach | October 3, 2009 8:00 AM

My passive-aggressiveness?

You suggest intent where there is none, I'm just here to have a good time, no agenda, no ideology fueled commenting pattern.
Insult you in thread after thread??? Man do you actually sometimes re-read what you throw at people here all the time?? Maybe you should !
And the fact that humour escapes you comes as no surprise to me, you know. It's all life or death serious business with strange gods.

*Sigh*

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 3, 2009 8:16 AM

My passive-aggressiveness?

You suggest intent where there is none,

So do you, by your own measure. Answer the question and cease to be a hypocrite.

I'm just here to have a good time, no agenda, no ideology fueled commenting pattern.

If you really believe that about yourself, then you need to reevaluate your actual patterns, as you snipe and deride any discussion of feminism.

To deal with your passive-aggressiveness I have to let you insult me in thread after thread without ever replying,

Insult you in thread after thread??? Man do you actually sometimes re-read what you throw at people here all the time?? Maybe you should !

Because I'm not a hypocrite, I don't demand that they not insult me in reply. Do you see the difference?

And the fact that humour escapes you comes as no surprise to me, you know.

I got that your comment at #309 was supposed to be "a joke," because what's funny for you is just to pick out another commenter and snipe at them. Fine, if your humor never developed beyond the playground, that's fine. It's okay. But when you pretend that the other person has to just sit there and take it, else they don't have a sense of humor, that's passive-aggressive.

And I understand you can't help yourself, but it's still really annoying.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 3, 2009 8:34 AM

Because I'm not a hypocrite, I don't demand that they not insult me in reply. Do you see the difference?

Ehm no, since I dont demand "they" (who's that anyway ?) dont insult me, would seem a pretty silly thing to do on an anonymous internet blog anyway.

If you really believe that about yourself, then you need to reevaluate your actual patterns, as you snipe and deride any discussion of feminism.

Mister Data, you have to reevaluate your patterns !
Huh? Where did feminism come in ?? "snipe and deride", see this is one of those occasions where I just shake my head at you since you have no fucking idea who I am, where I come from and what I actually think about those issues.
And excuse me mate, but as long as you keep twisting my words and misrepresent every post, I wont be replying to you on either of those threads. If I ever need anyone to explain to me what my words "really mean", I let you know.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 3, 2009 9:00 AM

All right. Go stick your head in the oven, you subliterate piece of trash. :)

LOL
No worries mate.
Keep up the stylish comments.
I have a suspicion it might be concrete heads like you that give atheism a bad name.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 3, 2009 9:15 AM

Help me out here. Would it have been more stylish to tell you to jump in front of a bus? :)

strange gods, that was over the line.

No one expects unfailing courtesy on the internet, and I think we all realise that insults go with the territory. But suicide is really not funny.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 3, 2009 9:21 AM

You're right, Walton.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 3, 2009 10:28 PM

You don't have a single scrap of evidence suggesting that my aversion of Islam is based on emotion as opposed to sincere philosophical conviction.

You are a racist. It would be highly unusual if your hatred of Muslims was unrelated to your racism. Possible, but implausible.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 4, 2009 9:54 AM

What say Knockgoats? [About Hyperon's claim that he's dissed for being a Brit, rather than for being a paranoid narcissist and racist halfwit.] - SGBM

No, no anti-Brit bias that I've ever noticed. A bit of OWHITUSAC* syndrome occasionally, but that tends to be from visiting glibertarians and/or racists.

So, just Hyperon's narcissistic paranoia again. Nothing to see here folks.

*Only What Happens In The USA Counts

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 10:14 AM

It is rather humorous how our resident racist always accuses everyone else of being a fanatic.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 4, 2009 10:27 AM

Piltdown, Walton, I wonder what might've been if the Romans hadn't conquered and enslaved Britain, and hadn't put the Druids to the sword and burnt down their groves. - John Morales

Well they never got to Ireland or highland Scotland, so we do have a kind of control. My hunch would be that the Roman occupation made very little long-term difference - apart from leaving us some straight roads and a few tourist attractions. None of the political boundaries, institutions or languages of Britain stem from Roman times (the Latinate vocabulary of English comes from the Normans), and most of their physical works crumbled fairly quickly. It's not certain whether Christianity persisted in the areas the pagan Anglo-Saxons did not overrun but at any rate, Celtic Christianity was steamrollered into conformity by the RCC.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 4, 2009 11:28 AM

Sorry, Knockgoats, but it seems to me that you're trying to assist the Muslims' efforts to have their own cake and eat it. On one hand, they like to talk about their "brothers" from distant countries; this shows a much greater degree of solidarity than Christianity has possessed for hundreds of years. On the other hand, like they to hold that Islam is not homogeneous in any sense, and that in general the views of different Muslims are very different.

If Muslims don't want to be seen as a "force", they will have to stop acting as if they're an Einstein-Bose condensate. They will have to cut it out with the trade-unionist mentality, which isn't paralleled by any of the other major religions. They will have to stop demonstrating here because of cartoons in Denmark, and they will have to knock off implying that certain acts have offended a billion Muslims. Once they've cut all of this out, only then might I consider your idea that they're not a force any more than Christians are a force.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 4, 2009 12:04 PM

If Muslims don't want to be seen as a "force", they will have to stop acting as if they're an Einstein-Bose condensate. - Hyperon

Do you really think that the demonstrations you refer to involve all Muslims? Do you think the vicious fighting between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere, is evidence of a unified Muslim "force"? Or the attacks by Sunni Muslims on Sunni Muslims in Darfur, or inter-Shia violence in Iraq? Do you read the polls you point to, showing a wide divergence of views even among British Muslims? You are clearly utterly determined to ignore copious evidence that Islam is in no way, shape or form a unified force in defence of your racist paranoia.

On the other side, have you never seen the complaints by US Christians about the persecution of their co-religionists in Iraq, Nigeria etc? Never heard the blithering about Christianity being marginalised? That certain Muslims, and certain Christians, wish to give the impression that their religion is a unified force is unsurprising, but surely even you can't really be stupid enough to believe it.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 12:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXjlkaM-ikY

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7197313214171411804

http://www.persecutionblog.com/

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 4, 2009 12:19 PM

Hyperon, your whole paranoia is based upon a strawman. If you aren't paranoid, you should just let it go.

What did you really expect us to do, and why based upon our past history at this blog?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 12:26 PM

http://www.birthrightisrael.com/

http://www.americanjewishleague.org/

http://www.aipac.org/

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 12:30 PM

There's no hyperbole. You are a racist, full stop.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 12:32 PM

http://www.militarychristiansworldwide.blogspot.com/

http://www.cswusa.com/

http://www.thebiblesite.org/

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 12:38 PM

Now, strange gods, you're just being a fanatic.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 4, 2009 12:49 PM

intuitively it seems to me that a large proportion of supposed trolls, or at least people you love to hate on this blog, are Brits. - Hyperon@253

I never alleged anti-British bias - Hyperon@344

Comment would be superfluous.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 4, 2009 12:51 PM

No, I'm quite sure everyone knows you are a racist. But you keep pretending not to be a racist. I will continue to confront you with the facts of your own racism until you address it.

If I've really made statements which are unambiguously racist, it's strange why I'm not in the dungeon. Surely racist comments are a bannable offense?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 4, 2009 1:00 PM

No wonder why you think I'm a racist.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 1:04 PM

No, if racism automatically got people banned, Piltdown Man wouldn't be here. PZ already said it was his opinion that you are a racist, and yet he didn't ban you for it.

And the worst you've said hasn't even been mentioned in this thread yet.

My links in #290 were chosen specifically because they demonstrate your racism independently of your hatred of Muslims. You've been whimpering that you're only being accused of racism because of your hatred of Muslims. Your contempt for non-Muslim immigrants demonstrates that you are lying.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 4, 2009 1:09 PM

One of things I like, of many I would add, about this blog is a lack of petty nationalism.

Far from there being an anti-British bias, I suspect many of the regulars are biased towards being Anglophiles. Certainly there seems to be a marked regard for British comedy, and PZ seems to be rather taken with British insults like tosser and wanker. On the part of the Americans here I also suspect there is some envy of how religion plays such a small part in public life in the UK.

There is a bias, and a strong one, against those who make racist arguments and arguments with no evidence to support them. Maybe Hyperon is confusing ire directed at him for being racist and ignorant with being anti-British. I can sort of understand that. IF you are as inadequate as Hyperon you would likely get annoyed at the world thinking you an idiot and rather than think that might be because you are an idiot, it is easier to blame it on nationalism.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 4, 2009 1:25 PM

Far from there being an anti-British bias, I suspect many of the regulars are biased towards being Anglophiles.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 4, 2009 1:29 PM

I never suggested anti-British bias, so this is all completely irrelevant.

So you deny you said this ?

Intuitively it seems to me that a large proportion of supposed trolls, or at least people you love to hate on this blog, are Brits.

Either someone is impersonating you or you have suggested anti-British bias. And since one advantage of having to register and login to comment is that it becomes much harder to post claiming to be someone else, I suspect you must have just forgotten what you said. That or you are lying.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 4, 2009 1:32 PM

Intuitively it seems to me that a large proportion of supposed trolls, or at least people you love to hate on this blog, are Brits.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 1:34 PM

IF you are as inadequate as Hyperon you would likely get annoyed at the world thinking you an idiot and rather than think that might be because you are an idiot, it is easier to blame it on nationalism.

You might be on to something, Matt. He has previously blamed affirmative action for his inadequacy.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 1:38 PM

Wow, knock, I didn't scroll all the way up and see the full quote. Standing with Pilty? Well, maybe hyperon is also a raving anti-gay troll in addition to a racist.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 1:46 PM

If the majority of people are agreeing on Hyperon's racism, then it might be worthwhile if Hyperon did a bit of introspection. Just saying.

But, but, but...anti-racists are fanatical nutjobs.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 4, 2009 1:47 PM

've restored the next sentence, so that everyone can see what a liar you are - and a stupid liar at that, since your lies are so evident

Maybe that should give you food for thought. Maybe you should start to learn that not every subject of discussion in the cosmos can be shoehorned into the quaint American conception of Conservatives versus Liberals.

No business of mine that the most uncharitable interpretations of my posts are systematically arrogated and insisted upon. No business of mine that most posters responding to me don't possess the requisite faculties for arguing in good faith.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 1:52 PM

Not entirely implausible, by the way. Some amount of animosity throughout the world is based in cultural misunderstanding. But as Knockgoats says, instead of digging in like a crank, you could have just read the responses of other Britons and admitted that you were wrong.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 4, 2009 1:56 PM

You were just generous enough to offer that perhaps we hate Brits because of misunderstanding, rather than lingering resentment against King George.

Nope, nope, nope. It's not misunderstanding or lingering resentment. I've never forgiven Queen Vicky for refusing to knight William Gladstone.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 4, 2009 2:17 PM

Not wishing to come across as one of the mentally challenged (anymore than my inane ramblings cause me too usually, at any rate), as a Brit it seems to me that your statement at 253 at the very least implies that there may be a quantitative disproportionality in the number of UK citizens who labour under the pernicious sobriquet 'troll' within the hallowed virtual halls of Pharyngula.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 2:27 PM

Yes. Since such a "disproportionality" (if it exists) presumably isn't the offspring of quantum randomness, it must have a cause. That's all. Who said anything about discrimination? Why are posters required to profess around here that discrimination is the only possible cause of "disproportionalities"?

How would hating a disproportionate number of Britons, even if by misunderstanding, not be discriminatory?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 4, 2009 2:38 PM

Hyperon @ 387;

"Since such a "disproportionality" (if it exists) presumably isn't the offspring of quantum randomness, it must have a cause. That's all. Who said anything about discrimination? Why are posters required to profess around here that discrimination is the only possible cause of "disproportionalities"? "

If it is not too much of an imposition, would you care to postulate an explanation for the aforementioned "disproportionality" (we can use the term 'anomaly' if you prefer) that does not rely on 'quantum randomness' or discrimination? As you yourself pointed out, it most likely does have a causality beyond random probability.

Could it be a function of cultural differences that do not translate well across the pond? Perhaps a simple misunderstanding? Maybe born of differing definitions of terms both groups believe to have a universally accepted meaning? I am even open to hypotheses involving the malign activities of internet gremlins . . . (remember, never feed virtual Mugwyes [I have spelt that incorrectly, I just know it] memes after midnight and never pour water on your computer.)

Any thoughts?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 4, 2009 2:58 PM

I do not remember being forced to swear a blood oath to this effect while a cephalopod-point when I started commenting on this site.

That was right after you were given your decoder ring and right before you were taught the secret handshake.

I must say in Hyperon's favor that I haven't seen such a display of tapdancing since Fred Astaire died.

Posted by: consciousness razor | October 4, 2009 3:14 PM

An OT tangent from the OT racism discussion...

Quantum randomness is acausal? I mean, sure we can't identify a cause, but is it assumed there is no cause? Does this "defy physics"? I wonder what Noam Chomsky would say about that.... Never mind, I don't really care.

Posted by: Carlie | October 4, 2009 5:24 PM

I made it in! The sign-in finally managed to work! Woo!

Having read all the same-old from Hyperon, there's really only one suggestion I can make: Hyperon, if you don't want to be called a racist, don't say things that sound racist. It's pretty easy, at least at the level of comment you're engaging in.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 4, 2009 6:01 PM

Quantum randomness is acausal? I mean, sure we can't identify a cause, but is it assumed there is no cause? Does this "defy physics"?

If it is not too much of an imposition, would you care to postulate an explanation for the aforementioned "disproportionality" (we can use the term 'anomaly' if you prefer) that does not rely on 'quantum randomness' or discrimination?

This discussion is getting really, really boring. It's going round in circles: "You're a racist!" "No I'm not!" "You're lying!" "No I'm not!" "You said X!" "But I actually meant Y!" This is an entirely neutral observation; I'm not taking sides or blaming anyone for this state of affairs.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 4, 2009 6:28 PM

this level of hate campaign (entailing going out of one's way consistently to hurt another human being) would be totally out of order.

There's an easy fix for that. Stop being a racist and we'll stop calling you one.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 4, 2009 6:37 PM

Gregory Greenwood #400

such is the action of a cad, a bounder even

A cad and a bounder? Sirrah, you have gone too far. Next you will be demanding that Hyperon's portrait be turned to the wall and he be expelled from his club. Have you no decency?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 6:43 PM

No business of mine that the most uncharitable interpretations of my posts are systematically arrogated and insisted upon. No business of mine that most posters responding to me don't possess the requisite faculties for arguing in good faith.

blah blah blah blah blah

It's always someone else, sort of like the domestic abuser who says, "Bitch made me hit her."

Posted by: Hyperon | October 4, 2009 6:47 PM

Hyperon, there is an easy way for you to stop people from dumping on you. Quit posting/viewing here for a while. Your problem is that you still have the mistaken belief that you can talklie your way out of your jam. You can't. You aren't that smart, or that glib. In fact, you tend toward the opposite on both counts.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 4, 2009 6:50 PM

Hyperon, you are still posting here, showing us your lack in intelligence and your racism. You just try to be glib, but fail with your lies...

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 6:53 PM

Perpetually going on about how "smart" people are is a good way to advertise your insecurity. I'm pleased to hear you don't think I'm glib.

says the fuckwit who declared his intelligence superior to the majority of posters here.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 4, 2009 6:55 PM

strange gods before me @ 365:

if racism automatically got people banned, Piltdown Man wouldn't be here.

What part of

the best way to minimize ethnic hostility is to foster a sense of common human dignity

or

racial hatred is incompatible with the Faith

do you have trouble grasping?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 4, 2009 7:05 PM

Hyperon, please. Stop and think. You are complaining that everyone keeps misunderstanding you. Notice what's happening - EVERYONE is misunderstanding you. The most parsimonious reason for that is that you are not communicating clearly enough in the first place. The conclusions that have been drawn are reasonable based on the actual words you have written. If those are not what you mean, then you need to figure out how to communicate what you mean more effectively. If you continue to simply call everyone stupid idiots for misunderstanding you, that will not be conducive to anyone changing their minds on how they perceive you. Think about what your goal is in writing here, and then try to figure out how to achieve it. What you're doing now is NOT WORKING.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 4, 2009 7:39 PM

Gregory Greenwood @ 416:

Powell does appear to have been of the opinion that the influx of racial groups other than Caucasians into the UK was inherently threatening to the stability of the country. He seems to consider violence (on a fairly large scale) to be an inevitable consequence of immigration. Rather than placing the blame for this violence on militant minorities within the pre-existing populous and the immigrant communities he seems to place the blame on the immigrant community as a whole. Their very presence in the UK was seen by Powell as a threat.

With all due respect, I think this is a caricature of Powell's beliefs.

He didn't believe mass immigration was dangerous because of the actions of militant minorities among the immigrants. He believed it was undesirable because its imposition (and it was imposed) would cause cultural dislocation and and disenfranchisement among the indigenous populace. Violent militancy on the part of minorities within both the immigrant communities and the indigenous populace was predicted as the inevitable result of this cultural dislocation. And as far as "blame" was concerned, that lay squarely with the British politicians who imposed immigration and later multiculturalism as a fait accompli on the indigenous populace.

To a man like Powell, the very idea of, say, a Black Brit would be an oxymoron.

Whereas to a man like you, it wouldn't. Fair enough. You evidently believe nationality is a matter of citizenship rather than ethnicity.

Do I take it, then, that you believe a black Japanese is not an oxymoron?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 4, 2009 8:04 PM

"Do I take it, then, that you believe a black Japanese is not an oxymoron?"

A Black Japenese citizen is certainly not an oxymoron. The trouble here stems from the duality of meaning in the term 'Japanese' as both an indicator of nationality and an indicator of race. If used in it's latter sense one could say that you cannot have a Black Japanese person anymore than you can have a Black Caucasian I suppose, but such ethnic labelling is of little constitutional significance.

A Black person with Japenese citizenship would (to the best of my knowledge) be equal before the law of Japan with a Japanese person of Japenese citizenship. The same is true of a British person of whatever ethnicity before British law. Powell, on the other hand, considered British citizenship itself incompatible with any non-Caucasian racial origin. To say that there are identifiable physiological differences in terms of skin pigmentation and elements of bone structure between ethnic groups is not controvercial to most people, whereas many people object to the exclusion of persons from membership of a given nationality, or from constitutional protection of their rights within a state, based upon race.

Out of curiosity, what would be your preferred alternative to the current multi-cultural system, if you don't mind me asking?

Would you favour what might be called 'seperate development'(I do not favour this euphamism myself)? I do not see how the cultural and racial integration of a modern pluralist society could be undone without causing massive upheaval and great injustice, especially given the existence of a substantial dual heritage community.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 4, 2009 8:12 PM

It is past 1:00am here in the UK, and my bed calls. Another early morning tommorrow. I fear that this discussion must continue without me for the moment.

Fair well and adieu, fellow Pharyngulites.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 4, 2009 8:40 PM

Notice what's happening - EVERYONE is misunderstanding you. The most parsimonious reason for that is that you are not communicating clearly enough in the first place.

Now this is seen as an exhibit of wartime hatred of conscientious objectors. Technically speaking, Russell's point might quite well have been unsupported and somewhat unreasonable. Nevertheless, it is clearly not a "despicable crime". We can surely find the occasional ambiguous or illogical claim if we subject anyone's writing to electron-microscopic treatment.

Try putting your microscope to SGBM's posts. They're full of non sequiturs, baseless assertions, and dishonesty which is unparalleled by anything I have ever said or written. If that's sufficient to warrant excessive abuse on this blog, then SGBM would be getting away with murder. Of course nobody in this community cares about ambiguous, illogical, uninformed or dishonest statements, so long as they appear "politically correct" and "on our side".

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 8:50 PM

Try putting your microscope to SGBM's posts. They're full of non sequiturs, baseless assertions, and dishonesty which is unparalleled by anything I have ever said or written.

Be specific, Hyperon.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 4, 2009 8:57 PM

nor was it at any point possible to designate an "us" and a "them" by any other means than either race or passports

and I made the mistake of saying "Britishness" can and has ever be defined such. To be accurate, "Englishness" has and sometimes still is defined as such; but that's different. And not really relevant to the conversation, other than to point out that within Britain there has always been groups that have insisted on defining themselves as "engish-er than thou" for no good reason.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 9:00 PM

. The best you can do is attribute to me things I didn't say, or link to posts of mine which are certainly not unambiguously racist by any honest reading.

Really? "black ghetto culture is singularly violent and primitive isn't racist?"

Damn, you really are pathetic. Not only is your own white supremacy beyond criticism or question, any attempt to call it out are necessarily the work of weak-minded, unintelligent, politically correct, fanatics.

Pathetic cracker is pathetic.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 4, 2009 9:03 PM

Yawn, Hyperon still hasn't learned the intellectual concept of STFU. That is what stops Foot in Mouth™ disease, which Hyperon has been suffering from for days. Silence allows one to be introspective an see one's faults. Which is why Hyperon avoids it like the plague, as his inflated ego won't allow him to be wrong...

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 9:07 PM

What part of "the best way to minimize ethnic hostility is to foster a sense of common human dignity" or "racial hatred is incompatible with the Faith" do you have trouble grasping?

All sins are incompatible with Catholicism, but that doesn't stop you from sinning.

Hating gay people, for example, is supposedly incompatible with Catholicism, and yet you do hate gay people.

Burning feelings of racial hatred are not the whole of racism; it is more generally "discrimination or prejudice based on race."

Accordingly, your racism can probably be found in an endorsement of a statement like "we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 9:09 PM

Hating gay people, for example, is supposedly incompatible with Catholicism, and yet you do hate gay people.

Incompatible? It defines Catholicism. As does hatred of women.

Sorry, that criminal cult don't get off so easy on it's status as a hate cult.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 4, 2009 9:12 PM

Hyperon, you should probably at this point take Carlie's advice @ 415 .
Or, as they say, stop digging.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 9:15 PM

You had an entire thread to hold me "accountable". That didn't give you your fill, so you chose to derail this one by regurgitating irrelevant shit that you'd dragged out for hundreds of posts already.

No, you keep saying racist shit over and over again. You've been doing it again in this thread, in the guise of hatred of Muslims. You're going to be called out on this every single time you try it. Get used to it.

For instance, even your fundamental premise of "Hyperon is a racist" rests on nothing but thin air.

All the evidence we have is that you are a racist.

We know that you are the kind of person who tries to deny and ignore real and current racism, in order to defend and uphold that racism, for instance by saying that it's not racist to discriminate against immigrants and the children of immigrants.

We know that you are the kind of person who finds it easy to casually say "African-American culture IS singularly primitive and violent."

We know that you are the kind of person who finds it easy to imagine that "reverse discrimination and affirmative action" are hurting white people and actually putting us at a disadvantage.

We know that you are the kind of person who finds it easy to imagine that the 13% of the US population who have black skin sell most of the drugs in America.

We know that you are the kind of person who gets very defensive when these behaviors are noted to be racist.

We know that you are the kind of person who refuses to admit that there is anything wrong with making these racist statements.

What else are we to conclude?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 4, 2009 9:25 PM

Hyperon, you seem to think that strange gods has it in for you. Rest assured, sgbm simply has more stamina than most of us in pointing out the context around what you write. The point isn't somehow "getting" you, it's pointing out discrepancies and/or errors in your thought processes. This happens to everyone here - what everyone says stands or falls on its own merits and how well the person explains it.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 9:27 PM

Right, but these are people who doublethink that Yahweh and Jesus are the same being, yet different persons. I'm sure The Hoax is capable of believing that hating gay people is both incompatible with and necessary to The Faith.

Yeah, but these are also the people who think a genocidal monster IS love.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 4, 2009 9:48 PM

More importantly, I have very few problems with Movable Type letting me sign in and stay in.

Even so, that's a lot of work. I noticed it was there - I'll have to look more closely and try it. When everything first locked down the Movable Type was pretty consistent, but then it started glitching for me, too.

Posted by: Aquaria | October 4, 2009 10:45 PM

P.S. I think I must have the record for having my words and PZ's mixed up by morons.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 4, 2009 11:04 PM

PS Please don't insult morons, they can't help it, unlike Hyperon. :)

hmmmm. Are we sure hypercracker isn't a moron and can't help it? Evidence has yet to be presented.

(and loving the link. Ignant is useful in certain situations where ignorant isn't.)

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 11:36 PM

I remember that thread. J was being incredibly annoying that day.

Posted by: Walton | October 5, 2009 4:14 AM

And for some reason you think I'm the only one holding you accountable, but among Nerd of Redhead, Jadehawk, Aquaria, MAJeff, Knockgoats, gyeong-hwa, 'Tis Himself, Carlie, Matt Penfold, Gregory Greenwood, Brownian, Endor, Kamaka, John Morales, et al, the truth is that fewer than half of them are sockpuppets.

If they all are sockpuppets, then someone's gone to a lot of trouble to build up numerous different backstories, ranging from student to retirement-age, spanning four or five different nationalities, different occupations and levels of education, not to mention different genders and sexual orientations. (It would be hilarious if that actually were the case, and the Pharyngula horde turned out to consist of only two people...)

Posted by: Rorschach | October 5, 2009 4:55 AM

but among Nerd of Redhead, Jadehawk, Aquaria, MAJeff, Knockgoats, gyeong-hwa, 'Tis Himself, Carlie, Matt Penfold, Gregory Greenwood, Brownian, Endor, Kamaka, John Morales, et al, the truth is that fewer than half of them are sockpuppets.

I read that earlier, and am still struggling to understand it. So less than half, does that mean at least one, at most 6( half of 14 is 7)of those commenters in your view are sockpuppets?

I will assume you didnt mean it that way lol, because I would have to object..:-)

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 5, 2009 7:11 AM

Piltdown Man the racist liar,

If you're going to assert that Enoch Powell was lying, the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. As far as I'm aware, the only recorded comment of Powell's that could be construed as racist is his notorious use of the word "piccannnies".

Here's the quote:
"She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder."

First, your contention that "piccaninnies" would not have been seen as offensive in 1968 is ludicrous: indeed, this use became notorious immediately. Powell's defenders always stress his intelligence and education: was he really too stupid or ignorant to realise this? Was he too stupid or ignorant to know that black children in the UK would of course speak English. Too stupid or ignorant to know that he was completely mischaracterising the Race Relations Act? Pfft.

The unsourced anecdote in which the racist epithet is embedded is one of many - Powell never provided evidence for the truth of any one of them. His speeches on race and immigration (and there were quite a number) were deliberate attempts to whip up racial hatred. He obviously didn't give a shit if they led to attacks on immigrants. Powell was also a passionate imperialist - he believed it was right for Britain to continue ruling hundreds of millions of Asians and Africans indefinitely. Racism is as racism does: if your actions consistently and predictably disadvantage those of races other than your own, you are a racist.

To a man like Powell, the very idea of, say, a Black Brit would be an oxymoron.

Whereas to a man like you, it wouldn't. Fair enough. You evidently believe nationality is a matter of citizenship rather than ethnicity.

It is, of course, a simple matter of fact that nationality is a matter of citizenship and not ethnicity. Only a racist like you or Powell could believe otherwise.

If "racism" means anything it means the belief that one race is inherently superior to another; or at least that race is morally decisive. As I'm sure you're aware, Enoch Powell publicly disavowed this view.

So does Nick Griffin. It is characteristic of racists such as Griffin, Powell and you that you give absurdly narrow definitions of racism. "Racism" actually means practices or views which systematically disadvantage members of some ethnic group or groups relative to others.

Posted by: Walton | October 5, 2009 7:49 AM

Another false claim by Hyperon. He just keeps them coming...

Nerd, Hyperon didn't claim that anyone was a sockpuppet. It was strange gods who mentioned sockpuppetry, as a joke. None of us were being serious about it.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | October 5, 2009 8:12 AM

Walton, not on the racism topic, but you claim that an increase in income taxes will _disadvantage_ a wealthier group relative to a less wealthy group. I disagree. After taxation your group A will still be at a wealth advantage compared to group B, just a slightly smaller advantage. I think this may be the same language/conceptual issue as when progressive taxation is described as "penalising success".

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 8:22 AM

Happier now, Hyperon? That one of the "mentally challenged", "weak-minded, easily-led simpletons" is defending you should somewhat assuage your paranoia. :)

It should, John, except I'm pretty sure he knows that I am your "bad hand" account.

Posted by: John Morales | October 5, 2009 8:33 AM

Walton:

For instance, consider a society where members of ethnic group A are wealthier, on average, than members of ethnic group B. In this society, increasing in income tax will disadvantage group A relative to group B; conversely, decreasing spending on social welfare and public services will disadvantage group B relative to group A.

Actually, if A has more income than B, then a linear increase in tax will disadvantage B more than A, as their marginal disposable income will reduce proportionately more¹.
Consider in particular the case where B is just above the poverty line, and a tax increase brings them below it — at that point, the tax increase would actually increase demand on welfare.

Heard of the term "working poor"?

--

¹ E.g. Assume A earns 30,000 and B earns 20,000, and tax is 20%, and cost of living is 10,000. This leaves A with 14,000 and B with 6,000, a ratio of 2.3.
Increasing the tax to 30% yields A:11,000 and B:4,000, a ratio of 2.75.
Increasing the tax to 40% yields A:8,000 and B:2,000, a ratio of 4.
Etc.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 9:17 AM

Walton, what you are describing is institutional racism.

Consider these two (simplified, but not hypothetical) scenarios:

A state government enacts a policy that will deny benefits to poor people, but more poor black people than poor white people, because they are conservatives.

A state government enacts the exact same policy, that will deny benefits to poor people, but more poor black people than poor white people, because they don't like black people.

What is the difference? Empirically, they are the exact same policies. Empirically, they have the exact same effects. The only way to tell them apart is by reading the minds of the legislators, and we do not have access to that information.

By all the evidence we have available to us, there is no difference. By Occam's razor, we should conclude that they really are the same thing. A policy with racist outcomes is a racist policy. This is the reality-based, empirical conclusion.

You would have us conclude otherwise, that there is some occluded and undetectable difference.

In so doing, you are robbing racism of much of its meaning.

The occluded difference of intent does not matter to the black people who are disproportionately harmed by the policy. In fact, it would not matter to them if a helpful policy was enacted by boiling angry racists. If legislators secretly hate the hell out of black people, but in practice enact racially equalizing policies, what difference does their hatred make?

Seriously now -- because the following really happens -- if a white child is raised to distrust and discriminate against black people, but as an adult learns that this isn't the kind of person they want to be, and they make a successful effort to identify and be mindful of their reflexive prejudices (this takes years of hard work), and if they come to act as an antiracist, what kind of person are they now? Are they racist because they can never completely destroy their preconscious biases? Or are they antiracist because everything they do is antiracist? Surely if we are to speak of the world in a morally meaningful way it must be our actions that matter, and not what's in our hearts.

Conversely, if legislators secretly love black people, but in practice enact policies that entrench racial inequality, what difference does their love make?

You would rob us of our ability to identify racist policies, by insisting that we have to care about what people are dreaming instead of what they are doing. This is not a realistic approach to the material world.

Posted by: Walton | October 5, 2009 9:43 AM

strange gods,

I see your point, but I think you're conflating two issues here.

Obviously, as you say (and as we have discussed before), racism is a matter of action and not merely of inner motivation. It is perfectly possible, for instance, to identify politicians who, while harbouring no personal racial prejudice, deliberately supported and endorsed racist policies and ideas in order to win support in a predominantly racist political environment (such as the American South or apartheid South Africa). I have no quarrel with describing these people as racist in fact, since their actions were substantively racist.

However, at the same time, I do not accept your conclusion that every policy which happens to hurt members of one ethnic group more than another is ipso facto racist. For example, let's imagine a country which is on the verge of financial collapse because it is spending so much money subsidising higher education. Let's assume that, within the population of this country, ethnic group A is wealthier on average than ethnic group B. Let's say the government then, in order to save its financial balance, cuts spending to higher education and makes students pay higher fees. Obviously, this policy will hurt poorer students more than richer students - and, therefore, it will hurt more people, on average, from ethnic group B than from ethnic group A. But this does not make the policy racist; because the policy is justified by legitimate reasons (namely, the need to reduce public expenditure) which have nothing to do with race. You may not agree with those reasons, but that doesn't make them racist.

Thus, I would suggest that a better formulation is this: a racist policy is one which systematically disadvantages members of some ethnic groups relative to members of other ethnic groups, and is not rationally justified with reference to any legitimate objective. If the policy is enacted pursuant to a morally legitimate and non-racist objective, and it is rationally connected to that objective, then it is not a racist policy.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 5, 2009 11:25 AM

Let's step back and take a gander or two at the foundations. What is racism, and in what way have I exhibited it?

Racism cannot be bias against a particular group for cultural reasons. Any and all culture is very much up for debate. Doesn't matter if it's generally held by Africans, Arabs, white Europeans, or blue-skinned smurfs. Every culture is assailable. Even an extreme statement such as "The culture that influences almost all blue-skinned smurfs is a feet-obsessed culture indeed" isn't of its own virtue racist.

Maybe, though, it is driven by a hidden motive for which there is no plausible explanation other than racism. This would occur only if the statement itself about smurf-culture is clearly illogical. If there is really no way that smurf culture legitimately qualifies as "feet-obsessed", and if despite searching hard we can find no plausible motive for the illogicality other than bona fide racism, then it seems we have a genuine racist on our hands.

The second caveat there is important ("if despite searching hard we can find no plausible motive...other than bona fide racism"). Let's examine my original claim about African-American ghetto culture. Let's assume there is no tenable reason whatsoever, by any interpretation, that African-American ghetto culture qualifies as "singularly primitive and violent". Is there really no explanation for my assertion other than racism? Obviously not, especially since I'm not an American. Maybe, for instance, I have a distorted view after watching too many episodes of "The Wire".

It's also very revealing that I chose to talk about African-Americans rather than Afro-Brits. Why, considering that racially they're not much different (although culturally they are very different)? Could it possibly be because I sincerely was interested only in culture, and was not impelled by some ulterior racism?

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 5, 2009 12:12 PM

Racism cannot be bias against a particular group for cultural reasons. - Hyperon

Yes it can, if that group substantially coincides with an underprivileged ethnic group or groups (as, for example, Muslims in Britain). Of course it is legitimate to criticise specific cultural practices, but not (for example) to deny employment opportunities to members of a culturally defined group (whether or not that group substantially coincides with an underprivileged ethnic group or groups). If it does so coincide, this illegitimate act is racism.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 12:27 PM

Knockgoats: note the Nazi's in the previous paragraph. ;)

Posted by: Walton | October 5, 2009 12:51 PM

strange gods,

I'm willing to use this hypothetical because it usefully separates two things that you are conflating: racism and irrationality. Racism is not inherently irrational. Slavery in the United States, for instance, made good economic sense.

That's why I said that the policy needed to be rationally connected to a morally legitimate objective. I recognise that a policy may be perfectly rational (from the point of view of the people enacting it) and still be morally offensive or discriminatory. Obviously, the objective that the policy is intended to pursue must itself be morally justified.

In reality, you just defined racism into nonexistence. There is almost nothing that cannot be argued to have some rational and legitimate effect.

Fair point: perhaps "rationally connected to a legitimate objective" was too weak a formulation. Perhaps instead we could use a test of proportionality (loosely analogous to that used by the British courts in human rights cases against public bodies). A policy of the type we are discussing is not racist if it is (1) enacted in pursuit of a morally legitimate objective; and (2) taking into account the importance of that objective and balancing this against the impact of the policy on racial disparities, the policy is proportionate and objectively justified in the public interest.

The trouble with your formulation is that, on your view, we are under a constant moral obligation to actively seek to reverse the wrongs of the past, despite the fact that we ourselves were not personally responsible for those wrongs. The logical conclusion of your view is that, in a society with entrenched racial disparities of wealth (like the United States or South Africa), any government which does not actively redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich must ipso facto be racist. This is manifestly an unacceptable conclusion, since it would mean that you effectively accuse everyone who is not a socialist of supporting racist policies.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 1:48 PM

Yes it can, if that group substantially coincides with an underprivileged ethnic group or groups (as, for example, Muslims in Britain).

If you actually believed that, you would howl racism whenever some Arab criticizes white groups such as the BNP. Naturally, you don't believe it and are just confused.

This only follows if you are saying that the BNP is substantially representative of white British people.

Tell us which of the four examples in #474 is racist, and why or why not.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 5, 2009 1:58 PM

It's also very revealing that I chose to talk about African-Americans rather than Afro-Brits. Why, considering that racially they're not much different (although culturally they are very different)? Could it possibly be because I sincerely was interested only in culture, and was not impelled by some ulterior racism?

keep digging cracker. Keep digging.

Posted by: Bobber | October 5, 2009 2:02 PM

Walton:

The trouble with your formulation is that, on your view, we are under a constant moral obligation to actively seek to reverse the wrongs of the past, despite the fact that we ourselves were not personally responsible for those wrongs.

Perhaps someone might help me understand why this is a troubling proposition. It's not directly my fault that the neighbor's child can't read, yet I teach. It's not my fault that someone has schizophrenia, yet I help talk him down from his manic episode. It's not my fault that Jews have historically been oppressed and murdered, yet I speak out against anti-Semitism. I don't classify wrongs as historic, current, my fault, your fault; if something is wrong, I work to correct it, in my own way.

In this particular case, people of a certain skin color have generally reaped the benefits (to varying extents) of a legacy of slavery and legalized racism. There are generations of African-Americans who were denied the material fruits of their labor; wealth they created was taken by strangers rather than passed down from generation to generation. African-Americans were disenfranchised, were refused their fair share of the economic pie, were enslaved and subjugated and murdered and kept in a state of constant fear and subservience. These depredations against millions of human beings have a nearly four hundred year history in what is now the United States. The after-effects of this history linger on; just because you have outlawed systemic oppression doesn't mean it no longer exists, nor have you corrected the lingering symptoms of past racism by applying a legislative poultice to the superficial, obvious rash.

We are faced with an injustice of centuries, where white privilege has helped create, as you put it, "entrenched racial disparities of wealth." As you said,

The logical conclusion of your view is that, in a society with entrenched racial disparities of wealth (like the United States or South Africa), any government which does not actively redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich must ipso facto be racist.

Consider your statement again, this time from the perspective of an African-American whose ancestors toiled for untold years and received nothing in return for their labor, who have had their history ripped from them, who have been told, directly or indirectly, that they have no place at the table of prosperity.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 5, 2009 2:23 PM

It could be that there's this one guy out there, Hermann P. Noodleheimer, and if we aren't totally racist to him every day, the planet will collapse into a black hole. I.e, racism could in theory be absolutely necessary, too bad for Hermann.That would not make it not-racism.

Obligatory literary reference

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | October 5, 2009 2:32 PM

However, what we're talking about in this discussion is coercive government action, not individual voluntary action, to redress historical wrongs.

The alternative being a constant underclass reinforced by government policy, which we know from the past can tend to make said underclass a bit testy.

Posted by: Walton | October 5, 2009 2:41 PM

strange gods,

You are wrong because you are trying to put moral constraints on a fact.

The fact of whether or not something is racist cannot depend on whether it is morally legitimate, or rational, or any moderation of these terms, proportional, balanced, justified, etc.

I disagree. "Racist" and "racism" are not value-neutral terms. Their meaning cannot be defined without reference to the speaker's moral values.

For instance, adherents of some ideological positions define racism simply as "actual discrimination based on race". This view would regard affirmative action and positive discrimination as racist, along with any other policy which takes into account race or ethnicity in any way whatsoever. People who hold this point of view tend to advocate a "colour-blind" society, in which race is simply ignored. Note that I'm not advocating this viewpoint; I'm simply observing that it exists.

By contrasts, adherents of other ideological positions (including you) define racism with reference to the privileging of historically dominant groups over historically oppressed groups. On this view, affirmative action is obviously not racist, and indeed is a fully justifiable means of redressing historical inequities. Again, I'm neither endorsing nor condemning this viewpoint. I'm simply observing that some people hold it.

Adherents of both the above viewpoints condemn racism, and profess to be anti-racist. The point I am trying to make is that reasonable people, who oppose racism, can legitimately disagree in good faith about what does and does not constitute racism. Therefore, racism is not a value-neutral descriptive term. "Policy X is racist" is not, and can never be, a simple descriptive statement of fact in the same way as "The earth orbits the sun" or "Warsaw is the capital of Poland". It is a value-laden statement, and whether it is true or false can only be determined with reference to moral argument - which is the exercise in which I was engaging.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 5, 2009 3:16 PM

Racism cannot be bias against a particular group for cultural reasons. - Hyperon

Yes it can, if that group substantially coincides with an underprivileged ethnic group or groups (as, for example, Muslims in Britain). - Me

If you actually believed that, you would howl racism whenever some Arab criticizes white groups such as the BNP. - Hyperon

Good grief you're stupid. Do you actually understand the words "coincides" and "underprivileged"?

Posted by: Hyperon | October 5, 2009 3:24 PM

Good grief you're stupid. Do you actually understand the words "coincides" and "underprivileged"?

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 5, 2009 3:34 PM

Most BNP members are working class and are quite possibly "underprivileged" in terms of their standing relative to the average national income.

The working class are not an ethnic group, fuckwit. I specified "underprivileged ethnic group or groups". In any case, the BNP do not "substantially coincide" with the white British ethnic group.

Why ON EARTH do you suppose that in order to attack someone's ideas their race needs to be taken into account? - Hyperon

I don't. Ideas are always legitimate targets. You began this particular demonstration of your stupidity by saying:

"Racism cannot be bias against a particular group for cultural reasons." [my emphasis]

You blathered about groups, not ideas. See the difference?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 3:43 PM

In any case, the BNP do not "substantially coincide" with the white British ethnic group.

I pointed this out at #479, and he was too dishonest to address it. Good luck getting a real response.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 3:53 PM

Against the obvious falsehood that racism is a moral judgment:

a white supremacist can agree that racism is best defined as "the patterns of racial privilege and oppression and anything, intentional or not, that helps to create or perpetuate those patterns," while holding that racism is a good thing,

and a nihilist can agree on the same factual definition while holding that it has no moral implication whatsoever.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 5, 2009 3:59 PM

Hyperon, quit fucking around and tell us which of the four examples in #474 is racist, and why or why not.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 4:08 PM

Racism cannot be bias against a particular group for cultural reasons.

Yes it can, if that group substantially coincides with an underprivileged ethnic group or groups (as, for example, Muslims in Britain).

If you actually believed that, you would howl racism whenever some Arab criticizes white groups such as the BNP. Naturally, you don't believe it and are just confused.

This only follows if you are saying that the BNP is substantially representative of white British people.

That's where you fucked up, Hyperon. The BNP is not representative of white British people. Therefore criticism of the BNP cannot be racist.

But if you get uncomfortable when you meet an immigrant named Muhammad, that's racist, because that's a broad judgment of multiple white ethnic groups.

And coupled with your overtly racist claims that it's not racist to discriminate against immigrants and the children of immigrants, we can see clearly that your hatred of Muslims is in fact a cover for your contempt for immigrants in general.

You are trying to use irreligion as a cover for your racism, so atheists in particular are right to be especially clear in our condemnation of your racism.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 4:15 PM

But if you get uncomfortable when you meet an immigrant named Muhammad, that's racist, because that's a broad judgment of multiple white ethnic groups.

Typo.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 5, 2009 4:27 PM

The problem is that you GENERALIZE to EVERYONE you think falls within the group you're characterizing.

There simply is no such thing as a 100% monolithic group.

Condemning a guy named Mohammed for your assumption of his culture and ideas is the very definition of racist.

I don't believe it's moral for employers to take names into account when deciding who to hire. Nevertheless, one could understand why they might do it (even if it isn't moral), since names can in fact contain information, and even a tiny amount of information (such as probability that the candidate is a misogynist who think women should wear veils) might be useful for breaking a tie. If they do use names as part of the decision process, it would be fair to criticize them for being too judgmental and attaching too much weight to an unimportant detail. It would not necessarily be fair to call them racists.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 5, 2009 4:45 PM

And yet Hyperon keeps digging himself deeper. Remember the first law of holes, and keep it wholey.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 5, 2009 5:09 PM

Racism cannot be bias against a particular group for cultural reasons.

It's also very revealing that I chose to talk about African-Americans rather than Afro-Brits.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 5:45 PM

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're arguing that the term "racism" is value-neutral; a purely descriptive, not a normative or philosophical, label. On your view, we can distinguish between "racist" and "not-racist" on a purely factual, empirical basis, with no reference to normative or ideological considerations. Although people can and do disagree about whether a particular policy is or is not racist, these are, in your eyes, simply empirical, not moral, disagreements - analogous to, for instance, disputing whether or not the Wall Street Crash of 1929 was the principal cause of the Great Depression. On this view, the proper means of resolving such disputes would be via empirical social science, not political theory or moral philosophy.

Correct.

This is perfectly coherent, in and of itself. But I would suggest that it is not consistent with how the term "racist" is actually used in ordinary political discourse today. Few people, other than the most unapologetic neo-Nazis, actually openly endorse racism. Most at least pay lip-service to the idea that racism is bad. Rather, what people tend to do is to define "racism" in such a way as to characterise their own ideas as non-racist, and their opponents' ideas as racist.

So the fuck what? People misuse words all the time for political gain. It doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and quit trying to determine what the most accurate and useful meaning ought to be.

The words have meaning regardless of the moral judgments laid upon them. Sixty years ago, a lot of people did not agree that racism was bad. What's changed is the social attitude toward racism, not the fact of what racism is. This change in social opinion around the same phenomenon actually supports my case that the fact and the judgment are separate things.

I'm willing to think about the part that I play in upholding institutional white supremacy. You should be too. These discussions are pointless if they cannot drive either of us to criticize ourselves. If other people want to pretend that they have no part to play in racism by defining themselves off the hook, then fuck 'em, they're not part of this discussion.

In any case, your definition (here racism-W) is wrapped up in multiple logical fallacies.

racism-A: racism is this.

racism-B: racism is that.

racism-W: racism is bad.

Besides the appeal to consequences, it's a classic case of petitio principii. You can't use it. It's just like declaring a tolerably low rate of child mortality to be no longer child mortality.

As an analogy, let's look at the usage of the term "freedom". Left-liberals and libertarians both profess to believe in the supreme importance of freedom. But they work from vastly different definitions of the word "freedom"; libertarians tend to frame "freedom" in terms of the absence of coercion and the control of one's own body and property, whereas left-liberals tend to define "freedom" in terms of the practical ability to make choices and achieve one's desired goals. Clearly, the word "freedom" cannot be defined in a value-neutral way. The distinction between "free" and "not-free" can only be made with reference to one's ideological convictions.

That's pretty much the worst example you could have chosen, since I already won this concession from you:

it seems we're in agreement on these points: freedom, in a meaningful sense of the word, refers to the practical ability to do something that one wishes to do, and is therefore synonymous with power. Wealth is therefore an important source of freedom, and someone with more wealth is, generally, more free than someone with less wealth. I will concede, accordingly, that my original use of the term "freedom" was a lazy and unconvincing one, and I retract it.

We found a value-neutral definition of freedom and agreed upon it. Maybe there is a similar agreement to be found when you stop trying to define racism as only those things that conservatives are willing to deal with.

I don't think you can separate the questions "is X racist?" and "if so, what should we do about X?" by treating the former as empirical and the latter as normative.

There is quite obviously no other way to do it, and you are trying to define the debate to allow your patently fallacious appeal to consequences.

Posted by: Walton | October 5, 2009 5:58 PM

From the fact that "X is racist" it does not follow that X is undesirable, without the additional premise that racism is bad. (SGBM's hypothetical example of racism being necessary still allows it to be bad in itself.) So two people could agree on a definition of "racism", while disagreeing over whether anything should be done to prevent or discourage X - other things being equal.

That's true, in a formal sense. However, the same could be said of most other value-laden terms in political discourse. "Democracy" is a good example, as is "human rights". There is no logical incoherence in claiming that democracy is a bad thing, or a fiction, or a waste of time; and, indeed, there are people on the fringes of politics (fascists, Marxist-Leninists, Piltdown Man) who would make such an argument.

But, by and large, most people within the mainstream of the political spectrum agree that democracy and human rights are good things - but they define "democracy" and "human rights" to mean whatever they want them to mean, encompassing the speaker's own ideas while excluding those of his or her opponents. I've sometimes heard these types of words described as "hurrah" or "boo" words: in practice, they simply mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.

This does not seem to be so for "freedom", which AFAIK everyone thinks (or pretends to think) good.

Again, there would be no logical incoherence, in theory, in claiming that freedom was a bad thing. As you point out, very few people, if any, make such a claim; but it wouldn't be semantically self-contradictory to say "freedom is bad" (whereas it would be self-contradictory to say, for instance, "goodness is bad" or "decency is bad"). So I don't think the distinction holds.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 6:33 PM

This does not seem to be so for "freedom", which AFAIK everyone thinks (or pretends to think) good.

The freedom to kill whomever one pleases is a freedom that has been allowed to certain tyrants throughout history, and it's too much freedom. I am very much in favor of limitations on this and similar freedoms, and I think it is similarly possible to say that certain amounts of racism are at least tolerable. We could eliminate some racism by executing people with racist ideologies, and we could reduce transmission of racism by strict speech codes, but I don't think we should do either. We're better off allowing that much racism.

It is possible to say that some racism is -- if not good -- better than the alternative. As above, this is obviously true in the case of individual racism, but I see no reason why it could not hypothetically be true in the case of institutional racism. Walton would rather whitewash the discussion by saying that any tolerable amount of institutional racism is simply not racism.

Posted by: Walton | October 5, 2009 6:40 PM

Jadehawk,

yes. and most people also think that evolution is "just a theory"... point being that common usage of a word, specifically to demonize others, is hardly the acceptable definition of that word.

I think you're making a category error here. As I said to strange gods, there's an important distinction between facts about the physical universe on the one hand, and social phenomena on the other.

In the natural and physical sciences, we can draw a sharp distinction between the empirical and the normative. It's an observable fact, for instance, that the earth goes round the sun; it doesn't matter how much we might prefer the sun to go round the earth, or whether the consequences of its doing so might be morally better. Empirical reality, in the physical and natural sciences, is independent of human attitudes and philosophical convictions.

But with social phenomena, this is not the case. Because social phenomena are created by human behaviour and attitudes, our own attitudes and convictions inevitably make a difference in studying them; we cannot study them without affecting them. The study of law is a good example. I've just finished a module on legal philosophy, and you'd be astonished at the amount of academic literature which goes into answering the question "what is law?" The major debate in legal philosophy is between the "positivist" school, who argue that law is simply a matter of empirical social fact - in other words, value-neutral - and that we can distinguish between "law" and "not-law" without making any reference to substantive moral norms, and the "natural law" school, who argue that a proper answer to the question "is X a valid law?" must inevitably involve moral and normative considerations.

I would argue that racism - being, like law, a social concept created by human interaction - is susceptible to the same kind of debate. The definition of racism, and the distinction between racism and not-racism, is not self-evident or inherent in the word itself. Just as the question "what is law?" has no simple answer, nor does the question "what is racism?"

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 5, 2009 6:50 PM

i notice you skipped my "obama is a communist" phrase. do you then agree that by virtue of common usage and popular definition, obama as a matter of fact IS a communist, because people call him that?

as i said: for a discussion to be at all useful, we need stable definitions of words, or else it all degrades into blathering about semantics. and definitions that are based on morality and popularity are some of the most unstable there are; as opposed to definitions tailored to describe observable effects.

what, if anything, to do about such observable effects and their causes is a separate step that cannot be sensibly started before the first step is completed.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 7:12 PM

I didn't say we should. What I said was that, in identifying the most accurate and useful meaning of the word, we need to rely on evaluative moral arguments, not exclusively on empirical facts.

And yet you have given no reason why this should be true. You have instead said that you don't want to come to a conclusion that says non-socialist governments are racist. That's an appeal to consequences, not a legitimate logical argument.

You have given no definition of racism that does not suffer from a fatal logical fallacy.

I think it's clear that Jadehawk is correct about what you're doing. It strikes me as diversionary gamesmanship, and I quite simply do not have the patience for it.

Contrary to the comparison you keep drawing, racism is not comparable to infant mortality. Whether an infant is dead or alive is a physiological fact. Our attitudes and our moral preferences have nothing to do with it.

Whether or not "discrimination based on race" has occurred is an empirical fact, and our attitudes and moral preferences have nothing to do with it.

Whether or not an action constitutes or contributes to "the patterns of racial privilege and oppression and anything, intentional or not, that helps to create or perpetuate those patterns" is an empirical fact, and our attitudes and moral preferences have nothing to do with it.

Only the Waltonian redefinition, spewing logical fallacies out its butt, has anything to do with moral preferences. The problem you identify exists only in your own definition.

"The fact of what racism is" has changed. Modern racism is different from the racism of sixty years ago, precisely because our social attitudes have changed; it manifests itself on different ways, and its influence and effects are different.

Racism takes different forms; in the "rapping about genes" thread I gave some of the differences between modern and old-fashioned racism.

This is irrelevant to the fact that if racism is "discrimination based on race" then it is and always has been "discrimination based on race."

And if racism is "the patterns of racial privilege and oppression and anything, intentional or not, that helps to create or perpetuate those patterns" then it is and always has been "the patterns of racial privilege and oppression and anything, intentional or not, that helps to create or perpetuate those patterns."

The different manifestations are still all either "the patterns of racial privilege and oppression and anything, intentional or not, that helps to create or perpetuate those patterns" or "discrimination based on race." All the different manifestations of racism are either encapsulated by one of these definitions, or they are not racism.

Racism cannot be studied as a phenomenon without reference to the present behaviour and ideological convictions of individuals in society. And, therefore, one cannot separate the empirical fact from the normative judgment in the way that you seek to do.

Those two sentences. The second does not follow from the first. We can study racism perfectly well without defining it in moral terms. Both racism-A and racism-B do this.

If you meant to say that we can't understand racism without also studying public opinions about whether racism is good or bad, sure, that's true, but it's also completely irrelevant to what racism is.

I absolutely agree, and I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. I was simply arguing that a proper understanding of racism requires a discussion of philosophical principles, not merely an observation of empirical facts.

Still precisely zero argument from you on why this should be the case. All entirely assertion. Very tiresome.

If it can be demonstrated, in substantive debate, that my understanding of the nature of racism is flawed, then this will inevitably cause me to adopt both a different view of racism and a different approach to the relevant aspects of moral and political philosophy.

Well then go back to your useless definition and see how you tried to define it so that it could not pose a threat to your ideology. That right there ought to be a big clue.

Racism is not the opposite of "goodness" or "decency." There has to be some room for racism to be not-bad or at least tolerable, and hypothetically necessary in some instances, or else the word itself is meaningless, tautological. You've made it into a useless tautology. You've made it mean that anything tolerable or necessary simply is not racism. You have imposed the end of the discussion by forcing a tautology. I simply cannot contribute further until you back off from that dead end. Well, I could, by yelling at you in frustration like I want to, but I owe you a little more than that.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 5, 2009 7:15 PM

Knockgoats @ 456;

"While you are right that it is unreasonable to judge Enoch Powell by contemporary standards of tolerance and morality - Gregory Greenwood

No, he's not. I'm old enough to remember Powell's speech, which was widely condemned as racist and even as incitement to violence at the time. Edward Heath threw him out of the shadow cabinet for it. Powell was racist filth."

I am not old enough to have been a contemporary of Powell's so I was not aware that he was unambiguously seen as a rascist at the time. I really should have researched this.

I apologise and rescind the comment herewith. Pilty is officially not right on this count.

By my own contemporary standards, Powell would certainly qualify as a particularly repugnant rascist. The fact that he is practically a saint to Nick Griffin et al only reinforces this opinion.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 5, 2009 7:33 PM

I just read above an accusation of sockpuppetry against me!

Now I can't decide whether to demand satisfaction or have an existential freakout . . .

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 5, 2009 7:39 PM

It's hard out there for a cracker.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 5, 2009 7:47 PM

Yawn, still wrong, still can't shut up. Boring ignorant racist.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 5, 2009 7:53 PM

"Targeting a group is only a problem to you if the group in question happen to be constituted chiefly of brown-skinned individuals. This is a comment on your limitations, your character flaws, your compulsive need to show off how morally outraged you are even if it requires sacrificing basic intellectual honesty. I have nothing to do with this. "

So, opposing discrimination based upon skin pigmentation or ethnic origin(rather than opposing nasty types who call people who make broad negative generalisations about groups like 'African Americans" rascists) can have all these nasty side effects:-

1) Revealing 'limitaions' to all.

2) Spontaneous formation of 'character flaws'.

3) The 'outing' of your compulsive need to show off how morally outraged you are.

4) Loss of intellectual honesty (at least you get to keep your hair).

Ye gads man! With side effects like this, it should carry a health warning. One can only speculate on how many Pharyngulites may have been afflicted.

Just as well you were here to warn us, Hyperon. But for you, who knows how far the blight may have spread?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 5, 2009 7:55 PM

Fortunately, as a sockpuppet construct of someone else's consciousness, I am immune to any such contagion.

Um, yay for me . . I think.

Posted by: Bobber | October 5, 2009 7:59 PM

4) Loss of intellectual honesty (at least you get to keep your hair).

Ahem. To whom do I complain regarding this part of the contract, which, in my case, has not been fulfilled to my satisfaction?

Posted by: Hyperon | October 5, 2009 8:07 PM

So, opposing discrimination based upon skin pigmentation or ethnic origin(rather than opposing nasty types who call people who make broad negative generalisations about groups like 'African Americans" rascists) can have all these nasty side effects:-

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 8:13 PM

However, he goes much further. He believes that if a group happens to be of chiefly non-white skin pigmentation, then it is immoral to disparage that group in any way. Criticizing them purely based on the ideas they hold is, to Knockgoats, racist.

That is of course a lie, and in any case, you are a racist because you have shown your contempt for non-Muslim immigrants, regardless of any ideas that they have, by saying it is not racist to discriminate against immigrants and the children of immigrants.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 5, 2009 8:24 PM

"We had this problem before when you tried to chime in. You completely and consummately get the wrong end of the stick yet again. Lay off the booze, or learn how to read."

My apologies, Hyperon for offending thine eye with my tom-foolery. I would seek to follow your wise injunction but, as a tea-totaler, I would have a hard time 'laying off the booze' anymore than I currently do. As for 'learning how to read', I must simply be thankful for the incredible, probability-defying good fortune I have had thus far that has transmuted my illiterate mashing of the keyboard into posts that my fellow commentators have had no trouble interpreting. All except your august self, that is.

Clearly your vast powers of perception are so far beyond those of non-Olympians that you instantly deduced my lack of reading comprehension. I take my hat off to your near preter-natural acuity sir!

I shall strive to less completely and consumately get the wrong end of the next rhetorical stick you cast into the midst of my fellow Pharyngula hounds.

My future chiming will, I hope, be of a more pleasing resonance.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 8:28 PM

No!--I've already been in a coma, and the realisation that I've been given a second chance at a life so fleeting, so precious, that I've got wisdom far beyond my years and an unparallelled zest for life. That's it!

That was where I thought my gut would burst. :D

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | October 5, 2009 8:38 PM

Brownian, I agree with strange gods. Your backstory is a work of literary genius. The life-affirming coma recovery bit is my favourite also.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 5, 2009 8:44 PM

Still a racist Hyperon. You can try to keep spinning your own words, but they still come up racist. More failure on your part. Not going the way you thought it would when you stupidly brought up the subject?

Posted by: Hyperon | October 5, 2009 8:54 PM

The difference is that we castigate people who chose to be members of certain groups. You, on the other hand, despise people who did not chose to be members of the groups you fear and hate. Do you see the difference? Or are you too caught up in your own self-righteousness to admit it?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 9:06 PM

There's not a grain of evidence that I'm biased against (much less "despise") any ethnic group.

Of course you are. You're biased against all immigrants.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 5, 2009 9:21 PM

Hyperon, if you want us to stop calling you racist, stop posting here. There is a one to one correspondence between you posting here and us calling you racist. Go away and inspect your grubby, dirty soul, and remove your paranoia about people of other skin colors, religions, and "class status". Use mental floss. Only come back after that is accomplished.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 5, 2009 9:45 PM

Knockgoats can take care of himself,

He certainly can, and he's given you enough beatings that if you had any sense you'd have shut up by now. However. He is currently in bed, asleep. I am awake, and you are fouling my internet with your racist offal. So I'm afraid it's my problem, at least until you pass out.

(3) I remarked that the BNP are predominantly white working class. Surely by his logic it would be racist to excoriate the BNP?

You're an imbecile, Hyperon. This was answered several times, and you are too stupid to understand the answer. I repeat.

[you:] Racism cannot be bias against a particular group for cultural reasons.

[Knockgoats:] Yes it can, if that group substantially coincides with an underprivileged ethnic group or groups (as, for example, Muslims in Britain).

[you:] If you actually believed that, you would howl racism whenever some Arab criticizes white groups such as the BNP. Naturally, you don't believe it and are just confused.

This only follows if you are saying that the BNP is substantially representative of white British people.

That's where you fucked up, Hyperon. The BNP is not representative of white British people. Therefore criticism of the BNP cannot be racist.

[Knockgoats:] In any case, the BNP do not "substantially coincide" with the white British ethnic group.

See, Hyperon? The BNP are not substantially representative of white British people, not least because most white British people do not identify with the BNP. Pretty simple. Stunning how you are too stupid to get it after it's explained to you so many times. There must be something seriously wrong with you.

(4) He answered that "white" isn't an ethnic group.

He certainly did not, you idiot racist liar. Now, ethnicity is a somewhat technical term, and it generally makes more sense to talk about Irish and Normans as ethnic groups than white people, although loosely speaking one could talk about "white British." So I checked to see whether he had said anything similar to your allegation, something a really stupid Hyperon could have confused. No. In fact as you can see above, he explicitly talked about "the white British ethnic group."

What he did say is this:

[Knockgoats:] The working class are not an ethnic group, fuckwit. I specified "underprivileged ethnic group or groups".

And you know what? It's true. The working class are not an ethnic group. Fuckwit.

Pretty simple. I don't know how you could have missed it.

(7) Why is belonging to an underprivileged ethnic group (Muslims) any more special than simply being underprivileged (white working class BNP)? My sarcastic comment in #528 seems appropriate.

Nobody said it was more special. But being white does mean benefiting from white privilege. See, you idiot:

It's certainly possible for a white person to be poor, and underprivileged because of classism. Or to be gay, and discriminated against because of heterosexism. Or to be a woman, and oppressed by sexism (not that you care, since the opportunity to talk about oppression against white women in Britain was offered to you several times and you ignored it, preferring to scream about Muslims).

It is not possible for a white person in Western society to be underprivileged as a white person. This is because racism here manifests specifically as a system of white privilege.

This means that while the white working class are definitely suffering from classism, they are not suffering from racism. And this discussion was about racism. You tried to change the subject when it became obvious once again that you were going down the path of a racist nut. But the fact is that racism is different from classism, and needs to be addressed differently.

Now, you racist nut, you certainly cannot make the case to anyone that Knockgoats is not interested in the working classes, white and otherwise. He is a socialist. His political philosophy is centered around the working classes, of all ethnic groups.

All the facts point to you being an idiot and a racist, both incapable of understanding this discussion and incapable of introspection.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 6, 2009 11:28 AM

This means that while the white working class are definitely suffering from classism, they are not suffering from racism. And this discussion was about racism. You tried to change the subject when it became obvious once again that you were going down the path of a racist nut. But the fact is that racism is different from classism, and needs to be addressed differently.

Incidentally, membership of the BNP brings about a far greater extent of discrimination than any institutional racism. You might think this is justified discrimination, but it's clear that the dogma subscribed to by a large percentage of Muslims is even worse. This is only the tip of the iceberg that is appeasement of Islam. A Christian sympathizing with blowing up abortion clinics is jeered at as a twisted psychopath; a Muslim sympathizing with terrorism is a fairly typical Muslim, and it is "racist" to say anything about him.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 6, 2009 11:47 AM

A Christian sympathizing with blowing up abortion clinics is jeered at as a twisted psychopath; a Muslim sympathizing with terrorism is a fairly typical Muslim, and it is "racist" to say anything about him.

Except that we've continually shown you evidence such as the Gallup poll that sympathising with terrorism is not a typical belief of Muslims in England, you fucking stupid, lying, piece of trash.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 6, 2009 12:00 PM

Ah, the old paranoid's standby. When you don't have anything good to say [to make your case in the face of contrary evidence, that is], grab your balls.

Do the ball-grabbing Southern racist crackers cry as much as Hyperon that everybody's being mean to them, boo-hoo? Wow. I didn't think it would be possible for me to have even less respect for them then I already did, but there you go.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 6, 2009 12:17 PM

Actually, we showed that the figure of British Muslims who approve of suicide bombing (much less "sympathize with") is around 10%:

Oh, sorry. You're right, 10% is typical.

Funny though, that when "22% of Turks, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 8% of Egyptians, and 16% of Indonesians believe in evolution", that shows just the opposite: that most Muslims are creationists.

So, 10% is typical when it means most Muslims support blowing white people up, but completely atypical when when it comes to support for evolution. Got it.

Yeah, I think the neutral bystanders will totally have your back here.

Piece of trash.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 6, 2009 12:27 PM

Speaking of shopping, when I've visited Britain, France, and Germany, I've hit it off quite well with Muslim shopkeepers. I got some great street food at a great price on my first day in London from a pleasantly brown Pakistani--on my limited budget, my other food experiences were not quite so nice. And with the exception of some really awesome fresh milk, the British chain grocery did not impress.

France was friendlier on a recent trip than in 1994, when my travel companions and I hit it off with this Turkish dude (who actually condescended to speak English). No, really, I got some snotty comments from Français et Françaises (in Fr., natch) in '94 whereas this last time I was generously helped out in English by young French of a wonderous variety of phenotypes in my tangles with the transportation system--and quite unsolicited as well! (Perhaps it's the national duty now to boost tourism, rather than fight the scourge of anglicisme, and if so it worked--I would wholeheartedly recommend Paris!)

Germany ... well ... I do look somewhat German, leading to Germans and Turks to assume I was one, until I eked out enough sentences that my wonky vowels and poor grasp of German grammar were evident. I was so tired of Germans by the end of my trip (soooo uptight ... it's like a mind disease) that I marched into a Kebab hut intent on a greasy gyros pita and totally gave up under the hostile glare of the propietor and started speaking English. At which point he--and his buddies hanging around a table drinking tea or coffee or whatever--suddenly became friendly. Apparently Germans are such critical, dour douchebags around Turks that my American accent was the passport to Gemütlichkeit. Who'd'a thunk it?

Oh, as for the pita... well, I have never had so many tasty veggies in a gyro sandwich in the states. It was fucking amazing. Not fair.......

Race traitor. Don't you know that most of them (80-90%) are creationists and most of them (10%) want to kill us?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 6, 2009 12:45 PM

Actually, we showed that the figure of British Muslims who approve of suicide bombing (much less "sympathize with") is around 10%:

Where?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-472791/One-11-British-Muslims-backs-suicide-bombers-says-Brown-aide.html

Did you actually look at the original questions and responses?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6309983.stm (7% of Muslims overall, 13% of Muslims between 16 and 24 years old "admire Al Qaeda")

As the report itself cautions:

Despite the shock headlines, it is important to put these statistics into perspective. The vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, and even those who express sympathy will probably not become violent. The 1990 Trust has pointed out that the questions asked in some surveys can be misleading, and that expressing sympathy for the bombers’ motives should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of the action itself. In its own survey of 1213 Muslims, it found a rather small proportion – 1.9% – of Muslims felt it is actually justified to commit terrorist attacks on civilians in the UK

These are just the ones who are willing to come publicly forward and tell us their views in a poll.

Paranoia?

Noting that I never even specified I was talking about British Muslims, neutral bystanders can decide for themselves whether this makes me a "stupid, lying piece of trash".

???

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 6, 2009 1:09 PM

...only 46% believe the Holocaust happened...

No. Only 46% responded "Yes - but it's been exaggerated" or "Yes - as History teaches". Although it is unclear what the respondants affirming the first of those actually mean; exaggerated in importance, exaggerated in terms of numbers of victims, exaggerated in terms of brutality? Who knows?

Of the rest; 24% gave "No opinion" and cannot therefore be said to believe or not; 6% "Don't know", which suggests that they may have doubts, but also may suggest that they haven't though about it.

Finally, 23% said that "I haven't heard of the Holocaust". This really tells us nothing about their attitudes toward it, but it is telling that 28% of "First generation Muslims" say this, compared to only 13% of "Second generation Muslims". This may tend to suggest that awareness of the terminology or events may be less prevelent for purely cultural reasons. Again, it says nothing of the acceptance of the historicity of the Holocaust.

Unfortunately. I cannot find the original survey data on the GFK website.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 6, 2009 1:14 PM

Sheesh, don't you know anything about data-dredging?

Of course. For instance; I can tell when people aren't very good at it...

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 6, 2009 1:26 PM

Oh yes, how paranoid of me to think it's a serious problem that 40,000 people are willing to come forward and tell us publicly that it's justified to commit terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.

40,000? When? Where?

Also, your repsonse is to your own words which had nothing to do with those ...willing to come forward and tell us publicly..., and everything to do with those who apprently aren't as open in their desire to commit murder. That you assume such bogeymen exist is clearly implied by the quote I gave:

These are just the ones who are willing to come publicly forward and tell us their views in a poll.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 6, 2009 1:33 PM

The paranoid racist still can't stop posting his irrational tripe? The more he protests, the deeper his hole gets. The only way out is to stop digging (posting). But then, that is what an honorable man would do. This is Hyperon.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 6, 2009 1:39 PM

...I'm also pointing out that...

Where did this fragment come from?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 6, 2009 1:58 PM

Wanna hear something freaky? I just went to Canada Place (the federal building) to grab some lunch and can you guess what? The woman behind the counter at the magazine shop wasn't even Canadian! Well, she was wearing a head scarf, so she was clearly a Muslim (or a Hutterite, but why take chances?) Anyways, did I mention this was in the federal building? Of Canada?

Well, I really wanted a magazine, so I bravely stepped inside, knowing that behind those abs on the cover of Men's Health potentially lurked an IED. I quickly grabbed my copy of--well, whatever it is I grabbed because I was so scared, threw a twenty at the woman and ran out of the store before she could scream "Allahu Akbar!" and behead me.

Is that fucking terrifying or what?

On a positive note, the veggie curry and beef samosa from The Spicy House was absolutely delectable.

...I'm also pointing out that...

Where did this fragment come from?

Muslim sabotage?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 6, 2009 2:10 PM

The woman behind the counter at the magazine shop wasn't even Canadian! Well, she was wearing a head scarf, so she was clearly a Muslim (or a Hutterite, but why take chances?)

Just be glad she wasn't a Cirinist

Posted by: Hyperon | October 6, 2009 2:16 PM

What percentage of British non-Muslims believe that 9/11 was a US/Israeli conspiracy?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 6, 2009 2:24 PM

Or you mean the occasional innocuously ambiguous remark, which is nitpicked by self-deceptive, content-apathetic imbeciles like you, whose argumentative repertoire goes no further than an uncanny capacity to blow trifles completely out of proportion.

Innocuous? Right. You're still a piece of shit, and a lying one. As noted, most of us here are conscientious about the language we use, precisely for the reason I noted above. (You'll note the same tendency is common throughout the sciences, should you ever be so inclined to read something more rigorous than the Daily Mail and Marmaduke.) Even a scientifically illiterate but non-stupid person would note the difficulty his vagueness presented in these multiple threads and take steps to correct it. You however, continually try to use vagueness to your advantage. It's obvious why you do it, by the way. Most of us here have seen your type of hubristic little puke multiple times over. You're only 23; you'll know what I'm talking about in--scratch that: a non-stupid 23-year-old will understand what I'm talking about in a few years. You're so fucking out-of-touch it'll take a second brain injury for you to get it.

Elementary arithmetic based on the statistic you yourself presented. You have my sympathies if you lack basic education required to follow.

It was obvious that he extrapolated from the survey sample to infer a proportion of the population and then claim that they were "willing to come forward and tell us publicly" that they support terrorism, demonstrating that he hasn't a fucking clue as to how to studies work or how to draw inferences from them.

Here's a clue, you little imbecile: If 40,000 Muslims were "willing to come forward and tell us publicly" that they support terrorism, we wouldn't have needed to do a survey now, would we?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | October 6, 2009 2:42 PM

So, a fairly typical Briton believes the American government was involved in 9/11. Good to know.

Posted by: Hyperon | October 6, 2009 3:15 PM

As noted, most of us here are conscientious about the language we use, precisely for the reason I noted above. (You'll note the same tendency is common throughout the sciences, should you ever be so inclined to read something more rigorous than the Daily Mail and Marmaduke.)

If you examine this accusation of vague language, you'll notice that it boils down to one use of "fairly typical", one use of "most", and maybe a few other comparable trifles, out of thousands of words of spontaneous, conversational writing, on a blog that does not provide the ability to edit one's posts. You try fighting several hysterical posters simultaneously throughout the course of a day. It's an exhausting experience, and it's not easy to talk like Lieutenant Commander Data the entire time.

You however, continually try to use vagueness to your advantage. It's obvious why you do it, by the way. Most of us here have seen your type of hubristic little puke multiple times over.

Here's a clue, you little imbecile: If 40,000 Muslims were "willing to come forward and tell us publicly" that they support terrorism, we wouldn't have needed to do a survey now, would we?

You like to call people scientifically illiterate, but I've read hundreds of your posts, and I don't remember you once discussing science. You seem to have no interest in doing anything other than trumpet-blowing and insult-hurling (unavailingly cloaked in the transparent guise of sarcasm).

Posted by: Endor | October 6, 2009 4:39 PM

"Your steadfast refusal to learn would make Kirk Cameron envious"

LOL. Brownian FTW!

Don't think of time spent trying to enlightening a disgusting racist as wasted time. There's plenty of people in the audience who conceivably might have learned plenty, as their skulls are not thicker than bank vaults.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 6, 2009 4:58 PM