…and this is a 
As I mentioned before, the Coalition of Reason is putting some positive, pro-atheism ads in the NY subways. As expected, of course, some Christians are upset about this. Their reaction is no surprise. The inanity of their reaction is also no surprise. For a beautiful example of a truly stupid response, you can rely on Sean Hannity.
Can you imagine the outrage if a Christian group put pro-God ads in the New York City subways? What outrage.
I can imagine it, because as that link points out, there have been multitudes of pro-God ads there for years. I was also familiar with seeing them all over the place in the Philadelphia subways when I lived there, and I can describe perfectly the "outrage" they generated. Look in a mirror, roll your eyes, and sigh…that's it.
That link also points out that Sean Hannity doesn't know, because he never rides the NY subway system.
Here's the Arizona COR video. Watch that and imagine Sean Hannity's outrage.
Comments
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger
|
October 25, 2009 12:12 PM
In other news:
Water is wet.
Sun rises in east, again.
Bear shits in woods.
Catholic priest molests child.
Posted by: Russ Painter | October 25, 2009 12:14 PM
Certainly not the first time Sean Hannity talks out of his ass, and sadly it probably won't be the last.
That ArazonaCOR video is cringe-worthy in it's cheesyness.
Posted by: 386sx
|
October 25, 2009 12:14 PM
So Sean Hannity/Manatee thought pro-God ads were banned on the subways, and he was all cool with it and stuff?
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 25, 2009 12:21 PM
Maybe next time you visit, PhillyCOR will have the bus (and maybe train) ads that are in the works up. :-)
Posted by: Michael N. | October 25, 2009 12:29 PM
I've lived in NYC and I still work there. I've been inundated by advertising and proselytizing from everything under the sun...Jews for Jesus! Watch a documentary on Dianetics with us! Become a monk! Unitarians are cool! We're the real Hebrews!
Of course, my favorite was the Jenna Jameson billboard in Times Square.
Posted by: Michael Ditto | October 25, 2009 12:30 PM
Sean Hannity is, in fact, a twit. And at the same time, so are many of the so-called "reality-based" atheist/libertarian/atheist Libertarian groups, especially here in the Rocky Mountain West, as they seem to worship Art Bell-style paranoia just as much as the Christians worship Jeezus. Or the Holy Ghost anyway.
You provided a perfect example earlier of Bill Maher's vaccine bologna. In groups, that poison spreads.
I remember going to an atheist gathering in Denver years ago that was basically a MUFON meetup with a different name, but the same characters.
I'll remain a sole practitioner, thank ye.
Posted by: IasasaI | October 25, 2009 12:31 PM
This is not on the topic, but it's in the general topic, plus I feel compelled to share it. I was out earlier today and went past a church sign that said "Nothing ruins the truth like stretching it". I suspect the irony is lost on them. Well, considering that this involves signage, perhaps it isn't entirely off topic after all...
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey
|
October 25, 2009 12:35 PM
So Hannity would say that the pro-atheist ads are "offensive," but not the smarmy "Pro-Life" billboards put up along our Minnesota streets (including one I have to drive past every day on the way home from work)?
Oh, I forgot -- only the nonreligious have to guard against being "offensive." (Cue Mooney & Kirshenbaum...)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 25, 2009 12:39 PM
the smarmy "Pro-Life" billboards put up along our Minnesota streets (including one I have to drive past every day on the way home from work)?
The infestation has also spread to North Dakota.
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey
|
October 25, 2009 12:43 PM
Worse yet are the trucks with big murals depicting something "shocking," like two men kissing or a surgical photo presumably showing an abortion, that some kook has hired to drive up and down Twin Cities streets and rile up emotions. Makes you want to run them off the road.
Posted by: T.A.C. | October 25, 2009 12:48 PM
I think that education is the enemy of ignorance whether or not the future is driven by reason.
I am happy that there are Atheist groups putting out a positive public image. That having been said, do the videos have to be SO lame?
Posted by: Becca Stareyes | October 25, 2009 12:53 PM
The next time I'm taking public transportation in a city -- perhaps when I visit my family in Boston, or go to a conference -- I think I want to take a census of how many ads addressing religion or churches or social advocacy I see (and what they advocate). Just so I can shove the statistics and photos in these people's faces.
A wonderful example of showing how people can be blind to views that the majority hold and/or they agree with.
(Seriously -- did I imagine all those 'Blah Blah Blah -- God' black and white billboards when I was in high school?)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 25, 2009 12:59 PM
Apparently Hannity only supports freedom of speech for that speech with which he agrees.
Posted by: raven | October 25, 2009 1:04 PM
Hannity is just playing the xian persecution card. They are doing that more and more often.
The fact that they are 76% of the population and it doesn't exist is irrelevant. Apparently they are so used to lying that they can't stop.
"Xians can no longer burn heretics and atheists at the stake or hang witches" = XIAN PERSECUTION
Most people just call it civilization.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger
|
October 25, 2009 1:05 PM
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
Hannity obviously doesn't get it.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 25, 2009 1:06 PM
Hannity: The Truth??....nooooooo...the huge manatee
-That having been said, do the videos have to be SO lame?-
Seconded.
Posted by: zeroangel | October 25, 2009 1:07 PM
I was a caller on his show on Friday. I recorded it and am putting it together in a video presentation for youtube (I hope to have it ready within the next day or so).
He managed to basically contradict himself in no time with minimal prompting from me. WIN.
Posted by: John | October 25, 2009 1:11 PM
"... That having been said, do the videos have to be SO lame?"
I have to agree with the above said sentiments. It's quite awful.
Actually, I find pro-Atheism about as condescending as I do pro-God.
(I'm an atheist).
Posted by: charley | October 25, 2009 1:12 PM
How to make a lot of money:
1) Choose a segment of the population that by definition accepts things uncritically (faith-based community).
2) Make up stuff they like to hear and broadcast it. Sell advertising and books.
Posted by: AS | October 25, 2009 1:13 PM
I ride the NY subways everyday. I see ads by the Mormons, why can't Atheists?
Posted by: Carlie | October 25, 2009 1:15 PM
Benjamin -that was a great movie.
"Yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, BOB?"
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey
|
October 25, 2009 1:19 PM
The Hannity types only want free speech to give themselves a voice until they get to power. Then, it's authoritarian theocracy all the way, and free speech no longer matters.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 25, 2009 1:20 PM
I suggest the next promotional video have its speakers smiling and presenting a more emotionally positive message.
I only recall two upbeat speakers; the young lady wanting the future to be hers and the woman working for a world where an atheist could be President.
The content of the message was fine; the presentation - there's much room for improvement.
Posted by: Osame Kinouchi | October 25, 2009 1:21 PM
Dear PZ,
Sorry for asking but the question is sincere: why in the Arizona AD there is so few women, blacks and latins? Why the majority of atheists are from the WASP class? There is some correlation between atheism and ethnicity or class?
Posted by: MCscience | October 25, 2009 1:31 PM
Was it really necessary for the people in this video to look like soulless zombies? They did a fine job reinforcing the stereotype of rationality being cold and joyless. While I appreciate many of the sentiments presented, I couldn't help visualizing the dreary parties these folks would have. Like a bunch of Vulcans.
That said, it sure wasn't any worse than any religious propaganda I've seen.
Posted by: ema | October 25, 2009 1:31 PM
Some pics of God ads on NYC's buses and subways (I took the "Medicine of Christ" one maybe less than 2 weeks ago) here, here and here, here.
Posted by: a lurker | October 25, 2009 1:33 PM
"Churches" have more money than "schools"?
Citation required. And a definition for what is being called a school or a church in any enumeration.
The simple fact is that most people are not attending church unless one count token showing up once or twice a year as "attending." Meanwhile everyone who has ever paid property tax, sales tax, has income tax has contributed to money used for schools. Don't forget proceeds from lottery tickets, forcing parents to buy supplies, corporate donating money in attempt to make themselves look good, teachers spending parts of their own salary to fund schools, etc. Indeed most of the older readers of this blog have paid tens of thousands of dollars towards schools. And if you don't pay the preacher you might hear some whining assuming you just don't walk out. If you don't pay your taxes, you risk joining "Dr." Kent Hovind in finding out that the government does not consider paying taxes to be optional.
I can't imagine they included universities, colleges, and vo-techs as "schools" either, let alone libraries and museums.
No citation required saying Hannity is dishing out inanity -- that goes without saying. He might not be a plump as a manatee, but he most definitely a journalistic calamity. Appologies to John Cleese.
Posted by: tim Rowledge
|
October 25, 2009 1:34 PM
So I suggest a relatively simple response would be to gather many (perhaps hundreds or even thousands) of photos of these posters and billboards and present them on a suitable website along with links to the hannity-insanity videos/transcripts, add plenty of suitable keywords and let the evidence talk to anyone that cares to listen. Flickr, or Picasa or whatever. Maybe someone with suitable skills could do a yootoob presentation.Obviously this will be a worryingly small percentage of insanity's audience but little by little...
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 25, 2009 1:35 PM
the woman working for a world where an atheist could be President - Michael Heath
Countries currently having women as Presidents: Ireland, Finland, The Philippines, India, Haiti, Argentina, Gabon, Lithuania.
Oh. You meant President of the United States. OWHITUSAC!
Posted by: Molly, NYC | October 25, 2009 1:37 PM
Hello? The subways have had ads for this church or that, as long as I can remember, right next to the ones for the school of podiatry and Dr. Zitomar's dermatology practice.
Has Hannity ever been on a subway?
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 25, 2009 1:46 PM
I was so pleased to see that Fox News is sticking to its tradition of not fact-checking the reports it airs. I like to see our sacred traditions upheld. I would be shocked, shocked I tell you, to see Fox News checking facts before air-time ... as opposed to indulging in spin control after broadcasting lies.
Posted by: ema | October 25, 2009 1:52 PM
tim Rowledge,
I just posted a comment (held in moderation) with links to pics I took myself of God ads on subways and buses. Hopefully it will appear soon.
Posted by: ema | October 25, 2009 1:56 PM
Hmm, let me try again, with only one link per comment.
Some pics of God ads on NYC's buses and subways (I took the "Medicine of Christ" one maybe less than 2 weeks ago) here...
Posted by: ema | October 25, 2009 1:58 PM
...here and here...
Posted by: scooter | October 25, 2009 2:07 PM
Not only is Hannity a twit, but he manages to have plenty of energy left over to be a full time Wanker as well, and he's not even British, so that is somewhat remarkable considering there are still another fifty pages of his resume' we haven't read yet.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 25, 2009 2:19 PM
You mustn't be so harsh on Mr. Hannity. Remember that people like him are both the moral majority and the persecuted minority at the same time. Clearly, you should pity him for his inability to think. lol
Posted by: tim Rowledge
|
October 25, 2009 2:22 PM
Good start ema. Hey, doesn't Flickr do interst groups or something? Maybe that's the easy way to gather a good number of shots.
Posted by: tim Rowledge
|
October 25, 2009 2:28 PM
Am I the only one that finds today's 'SinFest' (http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3337) apropos?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | October 25, 2009 2:37 PM
Meanwhile, everyone who has paid these taxes has also contributed money to churches since they don't pay their share.
Posted by: Meathead | October 25, 2009 2:49 PM
Michael Ditto wrote: Sean Hannity is, in fact, a twit. And at the same time, so are many of the so-called "reality-based" atheist/libertarian/atheist Libertarian groups, especially here in the Rocky Mountain West, as they seem to worship Art Bell-style paranoia just as much as the Christians worship Jeezus. Or the Holy Ghost anyway.
Sadly the cause and effect in this country is not that religion makes people crazy but that the deep crazy[tm] makes them religious. The specifics of that religion vary a lot. In the South it's Southern Baptist Republican Jesus. In the west it's Ayn Rand in a flying saucer.
Posted by: Rey Fox
|
October 25, 2009 2:53 PM
Knockgoats @ #29:
He said where an atheist could be president.
Posted by: Meathead | October 25, 2009 2:56 PM
Molly wrote:Has Hannity ever been on a subway?
I'm guessing his giant ass wouldn't fit on a standard train. Besides, like all the Faux Newz blowhards he's incredibly rich and probably has a chauffeur and a limo.
Posted by: Hank Fox
|
October 25, 2009 3:01 PM
Hannity's not there to tell the truth. As a high-end whore, he has customers who are more interested in illusions that cater to their private fantasies.
Posted by: ema | October 25, 2009 3:03 PM
...and here.
Posted by: AZ Geo | October 25, 2009 3:03 PM
The problem with ArizonaCOR is that all the interesting groups (like the Humanist Association) meet far away from where I live. I get stuck with the libertarians (blegh) Even the nonpolitical groups (like the ASU Secular Society) have a serious over-representation of libertarians. There really isn't a good liberal one (except the Humanist Society, which is too far away.)
Posted by: AnswersInGenitals | October 25, 2009 3:05 PM
Apparently, whenever Hannity the Inanity wants to go somewhere, he is transported through the ether on the wings of angels since he not only has never ridden on a subway, but also has never driven down any street with billboards. Never saw the "I found it", "I never lost it", or Catholic radio signs. Or those chintzy signs that seem to adorn every church. My favorite is a perpetual sign on a local church: "Christ is King". Makes me wonder when and why he got demoted.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 25, 2009 3:23 PM
Ah, the inanity of Sean Hannity's lack of humanity.
Can you imagine the outrage if a Christian group put pro-God ads in the New York City subways? What outrage.
As members of the reality based community, we all know that there are plenty of billboards that advocate for god or advertises some church, usually one of those mega churches. Also, we all see plenty of ads go up months in advance when some evangelical is going to hold a mass rally. Yet groups like the ACLU do not work at getting these advertisements removed nor banned.
Just look at what Hannity's words are implying, that there is constant attacks on the expression of belief. Yet the only way one can make this argument is to conflate the removal of the ten commandments from courts and religious messages from state property. One must be dishonest or completely removed from reality to not see this.
Posted by: chgo_liz | October 25, 2009 3:26 PM
Gruesome Rob @ #39:
Excellent point. We are all forced to subsidize these religions and their sacred cows, by paying more taxes so they can have a free ride.
I say, no taxation without representation!
Posted by: scooter | October 25, 2009 3:43 PM
Michael Ditto#6
here in the Rocky Mountain West, as they [atheists] seem to worship Art Bell-style paranoia just as much as the Christians worship Jeezus.
Wow that is really fucked up, I'd much rather endure a Christian than a paranormal freak, scientologist or New Age Wooton. My latest experience with a gathering of atheists was last month at AAI and it was totally opposite. Not a trace of woo anywhere, and I hung out with a lady from the Bay Area for a bunch of hours, she was tabling for an Atheist org, and she never even mentioned the org to me much less try to recruit, so my experiences have been quite the opposite, except for the RCP hounding me at the Queen Mary event, however baiting RCP recruiters is a hobby of mine.
zeroangel #17:
I was a caller on his show on Friday. I recorded it and am putting it together in a video presentation for youtube
Cool, could you click this: Contact Scooter and mail me a link to the video when you're done? Always looking for stuff to air on radio, thanks.
John #18
"... That having been said, do the videos have to be SO lame?"
It wasn't too bad until this non-sequitor
"In a world driven by reason , prayer is no better than chance"
We currently live in a world that is not 'driven by reason' and prayer is still no better than chance.
Posted by: Jim1138 | October 25, 2009 4:21 PM
Ode to Sean Hannity by John Cleese
Aping urbanity
Oozing with vanity
Plump as a manatee
Faking humanity
Journalistic calamity
Intellectual inanity
Fox Noise insanity
You’re a profanity
Hannity
Poem of the Week
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 25, 2009 4:25 PM
Time to maybe jam the overton window a bit wider with a few ads for cthulhu or satan. Make 'em wish for those nice rational atheists again.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 25, 2009 4:26 PM
Four tries to log in over the course of six hours, the blasted software finally stops telling me it's forbidden, and I realize I have nothing to say.
If I was Sean Hannity, I'd be able to get angry about this and come out with a rant about how the sign-in program is out to get me, but it's out to get everybody so forget it.
And Yeah, the ads are lame. They should have taken stuff from these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk#movie_player
Then they would have been awesome.
Posted by: Michael Dickens | October 25, 2009 4:30 PM
What a beautiful day in the neighborhood! . . . of craziness.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 25, 2009 4:32 PM
MC Science #25 wrote:
Aw, it wasn't quite that bad. Jim Lippard is usually a pretty relaxed speaker. Next time he makes a video, someone will have to tickle him just before the camera rolls.
Posted by: Carlie | October 25, 2009 4:44 PM
Osame @24 - Yeah. Hello, white people. This has been discussed before; there was a big brouhaha awhile back over the fact that the "public face of atheism" as it were is pretty much just middle-aged white guys. Unintentional, of course, but needing to be remedied? Definitely.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 25, 2009 5:22 PM
Quite.
And while I suppose it's possible Hannity's simply never been on a subway, I also expect it's moot...
As in: I figure the man for a lying sack of shit who'll say whatever he figure might serve his starkly, blatantly demagogig aims. Whether or not he knew there were Jayzuz ads all over the bloody place down there, I expect he'd still have shot that festering maw he calls a mouth off exactly the same way, played exactly the same 'oh, we poor persecuted believers' card. The truth isn't even remotely relevant to fucks like that when there's propaganda they could be spreading.
Posted by: Mark | October 25, 2009 5:23 PM
The best part of Sean's 'outrage' is that he's not a believing Christian. He's just a Fox employee and has to say inane things like that.
Posted by: JJR | October 25, 2009 5:38 PM
I was impressed they had a person speaking Spanish in the ad. I would probably hang out with them, because most Atheist Meetups I've been to are cool.
My Meetup typically touches on politics mainly to the extent it impacts 1st Amendment issues, etc. We have talked about some social issues, and most of us tend to skew liberal/left/Democratic; I'm a Green Party (and Socialist Party) supporter but I tend to keep my views private as the lead organizer. We don't yet have any hardline Libertarians, but if any show up, I would probably strive to keep them focused on civil liberties issues where we share broad agreement and steer away from their more extreme views on economics, etc.
I also don't know why white males such as myself are over-represented in Atheist circles; we have a few women, and also a few foreign students (one Bolivian and one Croatian). I imagine it's probably very difficult to be African American and out-of-the-closet Atheist. Among Hispanics here, most are nominally Catholic, while some of the most intensely religious in that community are actually becoming evangelical Protestants.
I'm always fascinated by Reginald Finley's (aka The Infidel Guy) experiences that he relates to being black and an open atheist. I remember him saying once that someone in the community told him that atheism was just the new "white man's religion". I would certainly welcome nonbelievers of all ethnic backgrounds; one of my former Meetups in Houston had an ex-Muslim from Afghanistan.
I imagine that in contemporary white society in the USA, community pressure doesn't have the same force it used to have, or the same force it *still* has in the Hispanic and African American communities. Perhaps that corresponds somewhat to people with more economic independence who are less dependent on familial or community bonds to just to get by in life day to day and week to week; i.e. it's probably harder to be an "out" atheist in an economically disadvantaged social group for that reason.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 25, 2009 5:55 PM
"Sean Hannity is a twit"
True, but as Benjamin Geiger pointed out, not entirely news worthy. Only a prat like Hannity or Anne Coulter could pull the 'persecuted believers' card and seriously expect any thinking person to take them seriously. Then again, they are directing their comments to habitual Faux News watchers, so I imagine that thought is decidedly optional if not outright forbidden
The video itself was terribly stilted. It's the kind of thing you expect to see in an office when management decides it is time to do some 'team building'.
While I whole heartedly agree with the pro-reason sentiment of this group, did it strike anyone else as weird that in a video about atheism, the word 'atheist' was only used once? The presenter was always careful to use the term 'non-theist'. I assume this was because some people find that phrase less scary than invoking the title of He Who Shall Not Be Named. Wait a second, that's Voldemort not atheists. Maybe it's the whole baby eating thing? Except we don't actually do that (unless I am missing something really rather important about my fellow Pharyngulites, that is).
I do not think that atheists should be so quick to allow xian's and the hysterical rightwing media to frame the debate and define the terminology. All atheism means is 'without god'. If someone finds that threatening or, worse, offensive, then they are a moron who is quite beyond reasoning with.
Where is the profit in assuming alternate language to placate those who will never do anything but despise us? Seeking acceptence from such fundies is quixotic. I think we should clearly and unambigously state what atheism is using the correct terminology to denote our meaning with no equivocation or evasive wordplay. Those who can respond to reason will appreciate our candour. Those who cannot can, as my dear mother would say, 'do the other thing' (she is far too polite to say what she is really thinking in such circumstances. I think mum would have a fit if she actually attempted to tell them to go and attempt to copulate with a live electric socket).
Posted by: MJ | October 25, 2009 5:55 PM
@Carlie, Osame
I took it that people in the video were actually members or whatever of Arizona COR. The reason there aren't any, for example, black people is that I imagine the numbers of black members are vanishingly small. African Americans make up only 3.1% of the Arizona population, and only about 5% of African Americans are atheists. Out of 5 million residents of Arizona, that's roughly 7,750 who are atheists; if we assume only .1% join an atheist group that falls under COR, we expect something like 8 African Americans total who are members that could have been in the video.
Compare this to 12% of whites who are atheists and 75.5% of the population of Arizona that is white. If .1% of them join Arizona COR, that's 453 potential actors, or two orders of magnitude more whites than African Americans.
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 6:06 PM
Next week on The Sean (one man's uninformed, bought opinion) Hannity Show... "Why do Atheists hate God so much?"
Posted by: rolanlegargeac
|
October 25, 2009 6:15 PM
Speaking of Godlessness this is hysterical - Christians who believe they’ll vanish from Earth in the rapture can now hire an atheist to care for their pets.>
Posted by: dangeraardvark | October 25, 2009 6:16 PM
PZ, you misspelled twat.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 25, 2009 6:42 PM
A Fuck Snooze personality working himself into a righteous froth on TV over an issue he knows nothing about? A conservative Christian wailing about persecution because atheists decline to stay in their room, make no noise and pretend they don't exist? I am shocked, I tell you. Simply shocked.
Posted by: Rorschach | October 25, 2009 6:45 PM
I think people are making a category error by judging Mr Hannity by the standards of traditional journalism.
Be fair to the man, he is as much of a journalist as say, Bill Donahue.
Posted by: David B
|
October 25, 2009 6:57 PM
Hannity is a twit?
Surely a typo?
David B
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | October 25, 2009 6:59 PM
You know, there's a nasty little bit of french history where the revolutionaries started "the Cult of Reason." I'm not saying this is similar, it's just that hearing it repeated over and over again like a mantra is giving me painful flashbacks to European History 202. LOL!
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 25, 2009 6:59 PM
"You're a "twit"
"No you are"
"No.... YOU are!"
"Well I said it first"
"Takes one to know one"
"Oh' yeah? well my dad's bigger than yours"
"Well your dads a twit too"
"He is NOT"
"IS too!"
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"
"Oh yeah? well I'm gonna write TWIT on this rock and throw it then see what happens"
Thanks for your fine contribution to the neo classical school of ad hom attacks Mr Myers.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Breakfast | October 25, 2009 7:03 PM
Pff, sure, real nice video — but can you imagine the outrage if they allowed Christians to put that kind of thing on the internet?
Posted by: rolanlegargeac
|
October 25, 2009 7:06 PM
dangeraardvark #63
His name is really PS ?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 25, 2009 7:09 PM
So, Lyin' Erk, you didn't actually read the post, did you?
Posted by: kiki
|
October 25, 2009 7:23 PM
PZ, you misspelled twat.
Actually, I think he's misspelled 'contemptible bootlicking wannabe-fascist cunt'. Hard to see how a seasoned academic like PZ could make such a drastic typo, but there it is.
My own preferred moniker for Hannity is 'The Giant Talking Anus'. I don't know why, but it really seems to suit him.
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | October 25, 2009 7:25 PM
You kiddin' PZ? Why would he do that? It's so much work!
Posted by: delphi-ote
|
October 25, 2009 7:43 PM
Hannity is a very boring fascist. He has a script that he just repeats for EVERY issue. Part of that script is "Can you imagine if _insert_ingroup_here_ did this? _insert_outgroup_here_ would never allow it!" After that, he usually switches to "This is the usual Chicago-style politics." Then he goes back and repeats essentially the same point ten times.
Even HE knows he's talking to morons. Why else would he repeat himself so much?
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 25, 2009 7:44 PM
Why bother reading the article? If it he pretends that it isn't there, then there is plenty of grounds for calling you a childish name-caller. How else would his "poisoning the well" tactic work?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 25, 2009 7:49 PM
Lion IRC
Do you know what an ad hominem is, Lyin' Erk? Here's a clue, while an ad hominem usually involves one or more insults, an insult is rarely an ad hominem.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 25, 2009 7:52 PM
He's a Christian, isn't he? They don't need to actually read or think - they use their [jazz hands!] 'other ways of knowing' to they obtain what they refer to as 'knowledge'. Reading is for suckers - other than a) Chick Tracts, or b) those parts of the bible that support their racism or homophobia, that is.
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 25, 2009 8:11 PM
Hi PZ Myers,
Do I need to read articles, use reason and actually analyze the issues? Why can't I just rely on your all embracing summary that "so and so" is a twit/fool/moron/retard/loser?
I have seen this methodology many times before...."I'm so smart blah blah blah and all my arguments are so convincing I can now relax, sit back and call people "twits"
Lucky you. Some of us dont have that luxury.
Lion (IRC)
PS - Hey nice use of the nick name Lyin' ERK. Did you learn that teasing skill in the playgound at university.
I shall now go and cry myself to sleep at your heartless taunting.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 25, 2009 8:16 PM
Oh kinda like what you're doing now right. You know how to point out all the fallacies and use them so well, it doesn't matter that you can't disprove Sean Hannity is a twit. You've already won, because we're just a bunch of stupid non-theist. Right?
Yes, douche, read the article before you go around trying to parade your "intellence".
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 8:18 PM
Lyin' Irk doesn't understand what Ad hominem means. Using that phrase without understanding it, makes him look like a twit.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 25, 2009 8:19 PM
That should be intelligence. Or rather pseudo-intelligence
Posted by: Diane G.
|
October 25, 2009 8:21 PM
I thought this was the blog where using slang terms for females as all-purpose derogatory epithets was frowned on?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 25, 2009 8:26 PM
Troll is trolling.
Posted by: Carlie | October 25, 2009 8:38 PM
Some of us do try, Diane. Usually as a side note while trying to make a point of substance with regard to the post, though.
MJ, it's a circular cause-effect kind of thing, and of course very complicated. I'm a bit surprised that in Arizona they don't have more of a Native American and Hispanic presence, though (aside from the one guy who threw in a phrase in Spanish there). I saw some data that Arizona was 63% white in 2005 and falling fast. It's just something to keep in mind when people put together public-relations campaigns like this and think about who they're trying to reach out to, and obviously it does stand out for some people.
Posted by: Nanu Nanu
|
October 25, 2009 8:40 PM
Troll is boring. Say something funny, Erk.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 25, 2009 8:40 PM
I thought "twat" was the gender-specific one, while "twit" was not and merely meant "stupid person"? Help this nonnative speaker out, please.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 25, 2009 8:42 PM
Diane G, it is frowned upon. But not all of the guys are on board with it.
Lion, it has been explained why Hannity is a twit. Either defend what he said; Can you imagine the outrage if a Christian group put pro-God ads in the New York City subways? What outrage. Or shut up. Complaining about name calling, in this case, is very disingenuous. That is because Hannity entire shtick is name calling.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 25, 2009 8:43 PM
I think "twit" refers to a pregnant female organism. I don't know, I ain't a native speaker neither.
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 25, 2009 8:44 PM
Can we nominate Mr. Irk?
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 25, 2009 8:45 PM
David, in the american usage, you are correct.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 25, 2009 8:50 PM
From Wikipedia:
Twat:
Twit:
Ok, I am wrong and Janine is right.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 25, 2009 8:51 PM
Most of the men here and almost all of the women try not to use slang terms for female genitalia as insults. We also do not refer to women as female dogs. However, there is a percentage who've either not got the word or disregard it.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 25, 2009 8:53 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak, please keep in mind, I am only talking about american usage. But that was a nice thing to say.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 25, 2009 8:56 PM
'Tis Himself, are you talking about my moniker? I did not give that to myself, that is what a christian troll called me.
'raspberry'
Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com
|
October 25, 2009 9:02 PM
Im now thinking that its a bit of a stretch to call such actions (posters etc) as merely "atheist". I think we're falling into the "antitheist" realm here.
Dont get me wrong, Im an antitheist myself, but I just think we could be a bit more honest about what is driving the current "movement". Atheism cant really drive anything.....
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 25, 2009 9:03 PM
Yes, Your Vile Bitchiness OM, I was thinking about you when I made my remark about the percentage of women who refrain from using certain terms. But you're a special case. Your ineffability is so overwhelming that you can get away with almost anything you want. ;)
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 25, 2009 9:06 PM
'snicker'
Posted by: AnswersInGenitals | October 25, 2009 9:56 PM
Diane: "I thought this was the blog where using slang terms for females as all-purpose derogatory epithets was frowned on?"
Would you prefer he be referred to as a prick, dick-head, putz, schmuck, or just told to get a pair?
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | October 25, 2009 11:16 PM
Boring Troll @68 sez ...
Projection, Ur Doin It Rite.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert
|
October 25, 2009 11:20 PM
GAH! Finally after weeks, I'm able to sign in! Anyway...
I find that an ironic argument given how Christianity was spread among the slaves on the end of a bullwhip by their Caucasian masters.
Somewhat related story: While I was working at Milwaukee's Red Cross as a temp, I helped man the front desk during a local meeting of various private anti-poverty agencies--most of them churches. During one of the breaks I overheard one minister tell a group of listeners that he believed that blacks should be subservient to whites because of... are you ready... THE CURSE OF HAM!
What made the remark even more disturbing was that the minister was African-American!
Posted by: Meathead | October 25, 2009 11:24 PM
delphi-ote wrote: Hannity is a very boring fascist.
I agree. I prefer Glen Beck. He seems so much closer to going on some sort of murder/suicide thing live on air.
Posted by: Diane G.
|
October 25, 2009 11:30 PM
Carlie, Janine, 'Tis--thank you. It's surprising how much of a difference its absence makes, even tho you think you're immune from so many other internet venues...
AIG (heh)--to go into the subject here would derail the thread...
Posted by: dangeraardvark | October 25, 2009 11:33 PM
I'll support every gay rights and feminist issue out there. But let us keep our insults, will you? Or I'll have to whinge every time someone says "dick" or "bollocks". How dare you violate the sanctity of my gonads with such coarse language.
Posted by: Diane G.
|
October 26, 2009 12:31 AM
Heh! Hey, you males can call each other anything you want. For that matter, we can call you anything we want. (You can object, of course.) We can even call ourselves anything we want. You just can't call us anything you want.
Sounds pretty silly, I agree. But it's just that danged old historical (& not so historical) disparity-of-power thing...
Tho I too love colorful language. Hey, maybe you can call us dicks?
(It's really not my pet peeve or anything...just that I've noticed how refreshing this site is for lack of certain tropes...plus I thought it was about time I pulled my share of the weight, knowing that I owe said atmosphere to the efforts of regulars here. Plus PZ, of course.)
Posted by: Ganf17 | October 26, 2009 12:41 AM
Conjugation of the verb: twit
Twit
Twat
Twot
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 26, 2009 2:04 AM
Hi Janine,
It has NOT been explained to me how calling someone a twit is anything other than a gratuitous and irrelevant attempt to insert bad manners into the debate.
A great man is known by the way he treats small men.
Because Hannity does it everyone should do it ??? (Nope. Not me.) If someone is telling the truth they don’t need to stoop down and sniff the feces or fling it around like an ape.
If anyone thinks the best way to make cow dung taste better is to put icing on top they are missing the point that you shouldn’t be swallowing it in the first place.
You think my choices are limited to the following?
1.Defend someone whose methods I disagree with (name calling and polemics).
2. Remain silent
Hmmm….? Why does that sound familiar? November 9th 1923?
Lion IRC
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 26, 2009 2:10 AM
How can anything to do with Sean Hannity be even remotely compared to a debate?Posted by: Rorschach | October 26, 2009 2:12 AM
Time for a new round of Survivor methinks.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 26, 2009 2:21 AM
So... you agree that Hannity is in fact spewing shit?
What are you arguing about, then?
Posted by: Newfie
|
October 26, 2009 2:36 AM
yup. survivor.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 26, 2009 2:51 AM
Yeah, as much as I dislike the idea, this particular inane troll makes Silver Fox's contributions seem deep, insightful and relevant. And he's completely unable to engage.
Posted by: llewelly | October 26, 2009 2:55 AM
Treating great fools with creditability does a great disservice to the less educated.Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
October 26, 2009 3:54 AM
Did the kitty-cat just do a mass Godwin?Posted by: Rorschach | October 26, 2009 4:00 AM
I'm still trying to figure out what a failed putsch in which some dudes got arrested(yeah ok, Hitler among them) has to do with Hannity.
That guy is just very confused.
Posted by: scooter | October 26, 2009 4:07 AM
Mark A. Siefert @ 100
I find that an ironic argument given how Christianity was spread among the slaves on the end of a bullwhip by their Caucasian masters.
Just after all the Arab Slave Traders did the same thing in the name if Islam. That's what I love about theists, they are so diverse and open to subjugating new peoples and cultures into their ethnic rainbows of salvation, glory and don't forget the rivers of blood, they just save the hell out of everybody they can get their hands on.
And there's nothing theists enjoy more than killing the shit out of each other, too. They just can't get enough whip snappin, gun shootin', sword swingin, genocide when they're trying to stomp out the competition, how the hell do they keep from going extinct?
Posted by: Ricahrd Eis | October 26, 2009 5:14 AM
Concern trolls are soooo boring. Lion, shut up and go away. You're whiny and annoying. And no it's not an insult. It's an o.b.s.e.r.v.a.t.i.o.n.
Because I fear you may have difficulty with long words.
Now that was an insult.
Posted by: kiki | October 26, 2009 8:22 AM
I genuinely apologise for my use of the c-word; I just really don't like Hannity.
So without trying to make any smart-ass point about the use of female vs male genitalia as a pejorative, let me couch it in more acceptable but no less vehement terms and say that Hannity is a dick, a wang, a tool, a cock, a choad, and a knob.
Posted by: Chris | October 26, 2009 8:24 AM
Hannity is clearly an ass, this is nothing new - but I think we need to band together and up the production value/acting/music in the Arizona COR video. I see where they're coming from, but man...they all sound like zombies.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 26, 2009 8:30 AM
I've noticed that nearly anytime someone types the term, "Hmmm…", it's preceded or succeeded by something the author thinks is profound, but which is actually an example of fuckwittery.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
October 26, 2009 9:56 AM
Jeff Eyges @ 119
"Fuckwittery": It's my new favorite word.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | October 26, 2009 12:15 PM
AZ Geo: The Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group, with nearly 800 members, has meetups all over the greater Phoenix area.
I wasn't happy with my performance in this video, either, and I suspect I cringed at it more than a viewer who's not in it. This was definitely an amateur, all-volunteer effort, done at virtually zero cost. I did a lot better at the ArizonaCOR billboard press conference, where I got some helpful coaching from Margaret Downey beforehand.
"Nontheist" was chosen intentionally as a generic term to include agnostics, humanists, brights, freethinkers, etc. who don't self-identify as atheists.
Posted by: Anri
|
October 26, 2009 12:18 PM
Ouch, I often do that. Although I rarely, if ever, achieve profundity, I do try to avoid fuckwittery.
Ah, well, I imagine the folks here will let me know when I slide into the fuckwit end of the pool.
In RE: this thread, has anyone else noticed that Lion seems to do a slow fade when confronted with direct questions or verifiable facts? Might just be my imagination, but...
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 26, 2009 12:18 PM
Even though other people have addressed this, because it is addressed to me, I feel I have to respond.
How can it be an insult if the accusations are true? Would have been more polite to say that Hannity is delusional and a liar?
A great person does not allow a liar to have equal footing. A great person give in to the false premise that there are two equally valid side to every story.
There is a difference between people like Hannity and people like us. Hannity can only apppeal to the baser elements of some people. He cannot and will not give true evidence for the sewage he spews. We can explain why Hannity is wrong. Some of us also enjoy using the right word for the right situation.
Using insulting terms while being able to back up the insult is hardly the same as shit sniffing and shit flinging. Equivalency error. But later, you commit an even greater equivalency error. Besides, you detract from the argument in hand by whining about an accurate insult. This is despite the fact you admit that you do not agree with Hannity on this point. Just who is fling what?
For someone who is concerned about being "polite", you seem to be wallowing in scat references.
I did not leave you a list of actions of how you should deal with this. Do not put words in my mouth.
So you picked number three, whine and cry and knock the topic off track. And in the process, you engaged in dishonesty yourself. You whined that all that was being done was name calling. You denied that there was anything of substance being said. You reduced this one side said this and the other side side that. You are not the fountain of integrity that is needed here.
At this point, you blew yourself up to smithereens. We are not living in Jonah Golgberg's fantasy world. Before you ever make an other Nazi comparison, read Ian Kershaw's two volume biography of Adolf Hitler; Hubris and Nemesis. After that, read Richard Evans' three volume history of the Third Reich; The Coming Of The Third Reich, The Third Reich In Power and The Third Reich At War.
You see, we are mocking a person who has no right to the prestige that he has. Here is what we are not engaging in. We are not going to meetings of opposition parties trying to drown out their speeches and using violence to back it up. We do not have a paramilitary unit. We do not engage in street warfare. We do not have murder houses. We do not have a relationship with sympathetic members of the military and judicial system. We do not have a plan with one of the former co-heads of the military and the de facto
head of the state to take power. We are not meeting in beer hall. THERE IS NO FUCKING EQUIVALENCY HERE!
Lion, you have shown yourself to be a delusional fool and a liar. You are a twit. Please, tell, which is more impolite. Calling a person a twit, or calling a bunch of people homicidal maniacs?
Why the name "Lion"? You have shown yourself to be toothless. Unless you are a mangy old lion, ready to expire, because you no longer have the teeth to feed yourself.
You have no pretense to majesty. Your whining and false comparisons have show that.
Is it because you rule your domain? Dream on. A mildly pissed off tabby can show you the errors of your ways.
In other words, Lion, you are not as "polite" as you try to pass yourself off as. You have no wisdom nor insight to offer. You are nowhere near as intelligent and educated as you want other people to think you are.
Fuck you and everything you stand for.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 1:00 PM
Janine the Ineffable, OM
Actually, Lion (IRC) has probably chosen an appropriate name. From the point of view of human morality, there are few creatures more unpleasant than the male lion. When a new coalition of lions takes over a pride, they routinely kill all the cubs. They then spend all the time they are not eating, mating or fighting off rivals simply lazing around, while the lionesses do all the work of hunting. Once a kill has been made, they muscle in and grab the "lion's share"!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 26, 2009 1:23 PM
Uh…
Why did you bother? Registration is no longer required. Look at me, I'm not signed in. :-|
Hannity isn't a small man.
He's a demented fuckwit.
And that's apart from comment 112, which has a very important point.
Bingo.
That depends on where the pack lives. For instance, if the local culture (yes, culture) includes hunting of very big prey (Cape buffalos upwards), the males do it.
They aren't silly enough, however, to sign their comments, let alone to do that with something else than they typed in the "Name" field.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 26, 2009 1:26 PM
Knockgoats, I am aware of the unpleasant nature of the lion. (While we are tangentially on the subject, The Lion King is yet an other reason to condemn Disney.) But I am sure out historically ignorant scold pick the name in order show off some power and might that he lacks. I felt the need to mock him for that. But I am sure that he would say my insult invalidates anything I have to say and makes me a participant in putsches.
But it is pretty damned funny!
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 26, 2009 3:32 PM
And Janine at #123 wins the thread! [bows in her direction]
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 26, 2009 3:44 PM
For instance, if the local culture (yes, culture) includes hunting of very big prey (Cape buffalos upwards), the males do it. - David Marjanović, OM
Well, I never knew that - thanks!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 26, 2009 4:00 PM
I said she was ineffable. [Also bows]
Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 26, 2009 4:04 PM
AZ Geo, I recommend you come join us at the Phoenix Atheists meet-ups (meetup.com, has a calendar of events). We usually have a good showing, and there's always room for another. In fact there are two groups in town, which you may be aware of, and there's a small amount of cross-polination so to speak, but so far from my experience (which has only been the last couple months since I joined so recently), people come out and have a good time. We even had a small get-together yesterday afternoon at The Monastery in Mesa.
The size of the city is always an issue, but you don't have to come to all of them of course. I'm not close to many of them myself, but there seem to be enough events that things work out for me to go.
Posted by: Walton | October 26, 2009 4:18 PM
I personally try to avoid using gendered insults directed at either gender. People, male or female, are not defined by their reproductive organs, nor should they be judged on their perceived non-conformity to gender roles.
Gender stereotypes pervade society, and are used to belittle people of both genders. Women who are strong, confident and assertive get labelled "bitchy", while men who are less confident and assertive get told to "grow some balls" or "man up". I think we should be avoiding this kind of dialogue.
This is nothing to do with politics or feminism, per se. I'm not making a partisan political comment here. I'm simply pointing out that people are individuals, and deserve to be judged on their own merits and choices, not according to gender stereotypes. While I'm no particular fan of either Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, the way both women were treated by the news media and commentariat reveals that misogyny is still pervasive in political culture. Using gendered insults - whether masculine or feminine - to attack and demean one's political opponents has the effect of perpetuating this culture.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 26, 2009 6:34 PM
Regarding these explanations to Lion - I'd just tell him, "We're atheists; we have no basis for morality", and leave it at that. I find myself saying it more and more even in real life; it's wonderful for putting a stop to conversations I don't want to have.
"Fuckwittery": It's my new favorite word.
QED, it's Open Source. You can have it for nothing!
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 26, 2009 8:02 PM
Hi Janine,
Oh - NOW - you want to do the whole 790 word megapost thingy.
I'm surprised you wasted that much effort on someone like me who is "nowhere near as intelligent and educated" as they think.
So......let’s see. You want to pretend as if you didn’t oversimplify the problem.
1. Either defend what he said;
2. Or shut up
You react pretty strongly to the 1923 reference. (You want to put a band-aid on that raw nerve before it gets infected?) I think you share the position of many totalitarian dictators. Hitler thought himself a great man and consequently he "decided" who was a liar and who he would "allow" to "have equal footing" It was his ENDS that that he used to justify his means not his ARGUMENTS..
There is much equivalency between the Nazis and someone who says agree with us or remain silent.
The convenient (and lazy) unmentioned third option of the Nazis was a bullet in the head. (Ah…..that’s much easier than research and logic and truth.)
The third option for me is speak truth to power no matter how irate the audience, no matter what they think of the messenger's (irrelevant) nick name and no matter how repeatedly the ad homs keep coming.
Nope - The vociferousness of your reply confirms my opinions and I think I will neither remain silent nor agree with you.
Now show me that there is no equivalency and try to gracefully accept that we can disagree without aggression or bearing teeth and the illogic of dismissing everything a person stands for on the basis that you JUST DON’T LIKE my statement. Viz; that PZ Myers calling Sean Hannity a twit is illogical, irrelevant and impolite.
Lions are mangy unpleasant animals yet at the same time majestic animated Lion Kings.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it already. You’ve watched the Discovery Channel a lot and you’ve watched the Disney Channel a lot. You might wanna take a few minutes to research the use of the word “lion” as a logo, moniker, avatar, brand image, icon, persona, animus, nick name, surname, translation and biblical symbol used in both negative and positive ways.
And just to finish off, since I’m moving on from this thread now, (of course I want to have the last word), an ad hominem is when someone uses subjective or objective personal considerations in lieu of logic and reason in the course of trying to discredit another person’s argument. It doesn’t “cut it” to say…”Oh well I already won the argument so now I am free to use ad hominems and they aren’t intended to persuade.” Calling someone a twit before, during or after a debate is gratuitous and irrelevant. And in my opinion it calls into question the credibility of the accompanying argument. I have logic and reason, why on earth would I need to call someone a twit?
Lion IRC
PS – Gee, I’m only up to 480 words. I guess I’m not as excitable as you.
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 26, 2009 8:08 PM
480 words. I know!
Instead of F.. you and everything you stand for I say...
Thank you for sharing your views. I respect your right to free speech and look forward to chatting with you again on another topic where your views and mine may be more similar.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 26, 2009 8:13 PM
Lyin' Erk,
You weren't told to shut up because we disagreed with you. You were told to shut up because you're a stupid twit. Do you understand the difference? If you were an intelligent twit, you wouldn't have been told to shut up. But because you're a stupid twit, I have to explain this to you in hopes that it'll penetrate through your stupidity that you're a stupid twit who should shut up.
PZ Myers called Sean Hannity a twit because the man is like you, a twit. Making a truthful statement may be impolite, but that doesn't make it less truthful.
Incidentally, your whining about your hero, Hannity, being called a twit is a perfect example of concern trolling. One of the attributes of most concern trolls is being a stupid twit.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 26, 2009 8:59 PM
Nice false equivalence there.
Ah, but you, as usual, misunderstood everything Janine wrote. You do not need to "agree" with us, but you do need to make a substantive argument, not just whine incessantly. You have done nothing but whine, and have not made a substantive argument.
However, by your own argument, there is "much equivalency" between the Nazis and Sean Hannity. After all, is that not exactly his point: that atheists should either agree with theists, or remain silent?
So tell us, why do you object to describing Nazi-equivalents as twits? Do you think that Nazis were not twits?
Right. That's the way of all arrogant, sneering, malevolent Christians when they gain enough power. They gladly commit murder because they are absolutely certain that God wants them to commit murder.
And if you don't come up with a substantive argument, that means you're just whining uselessly.
And there is not equivalency because you are partly right but mostly wrong. Of course calling Hannity a twit is impolite, but it is both logical and relevant.
An insult, after all, has a meaning or it does not. If it has a meaning, then either the meaning is correct, or it is not. If it is correct, then it is both relevant and logical.
"Twit" has a meaning; the dictionary definition of "twit" which is applicable here is "a stupid person". If Hannity did something typically stupid, then it would be correct, logical, and relevant to call him stupid. And, as the original post points out, he did indeed do something typically stupid: He argued against atheist advertisements on subways as if there were no religious advertisements on subways, and the atheist advertisements were outrageous insults to theists that, by implication, should not have been allowed.
Naturally, there are plenty of religious advertisements on subways, as only a little fact-checking would have told him. This was ridiculously typically stupid behavior on his part.
Therefore, calling Hannity a twit was correct, logical, and relevant.
QED
And by your argument, Hannity is also a Nazi-equivalent.
And what makes you think you're going to get the last word?
Wrong again.
Can you read English?
Sean Hannity is not being called a twit instead of attacking his argument; he is being called a twit as the logical conclusion of demonstrating the pathetic failure of his argument.
Nonsense. If someone is indeed a twit, then it is absolutely relevant to call them that.
It might be gratuitous if they haven't said anything particularly stupid, but after they have done so -- as in the case of Sean Hannity -- it is not gratuitous, either.
Well, I do note that you yourself have (a) used neither logic nor reason, and (b) have called Janine a Nazi-equivalent instead of using logic or reason.
Therefore, you are guilty of deep, deep hypocrisy.
That makes 480 words of insipid, hypocritical, illogical, unreasonable nonsense.
And again you demonstrate hypocrisy.
Believe me, after having shredded your pathetic arguments without having called you a twit, I think it is fair to say, in conclusion, after observing your failures of logic, reason, relevance, morality (inasmuch as you demonstrate hypocrisy) and intelligence...
That you, as well, are a complete and utter twit.
QED.
</SIWOTI>
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 27, 2009 12:07 AM
After calling me a Nazi, you want to remain civil with me. You really are not capable of coherent thought.
You really are not familiar with things here. That 'megapost' is no where near being long. Also, how many of those words were of me quoting you.
Once more, you are not familiar with this place. One of the favorite past times here is something called troll stomping. We do this for our own amusement and the amusement of others. I have a special pair of red wooden shoes for the hobby. They really are quite cute.
Yes, in essence, that is what I told you to do. That is because you blew out a lot of gas but said not a word about the critique of Hannity.
So if a person refutes an accusation, it means that accusation is true. And that I reacted because I really am a Nazi? I think someone should point out how one can determine if a witch is a witch. No need for a band-aid, I am unscratched.
So you are able to gaze into your screen and you know who and what I am. I am impressed.
As it has been pointed out by many people, first of all by PZ when he posted this thread, Hannity was called out because his words has no relation to reality. My failed attempted to get you on the subject failed. Yet this makes me like Hitler.
As is every teacher, every boss and every mediator that tried to keep the people they are dealing with on topic.
That third option came only from the deepest pit of your paranoid brain. But I will agree that it is lazy, it is your excuse for you not to actually deal with the original post of this thread.
You are not speaking to power, you are speaking to an anonymous person on the internet. But I guess you need to think you are standing up for important principles. And even better, standing up to those nasty Nazis.
And you spend all of this time avoiding the content of what Hannity said.
I have no need to repeat myself. Just read my previous reply. For you have not shown that I am a Nazi. Also, I cannot be graceful to an ignorant asshole who calls me a Nazi.
And call me a Nazi is logical, relevant and polite. You're an idiot babe. It's a wonder you still know how to breath.
Once more, your great ability to gaze into your screen and know who I am is staggering. It is like you know me. Except the only thing I watch on Discovery is Mythbusters. And if I said I hated Disney, why would I be watching it a lot?
I know of these things. That is why I was mocking you. You one of many points that whizzed past your head.
Color me shattered.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Owlmirror covered this one quite well. But I will repurposeone sentense. I have logic and reason, why on earth would I need to call someone a Nazi?
Hypocrite.
We all know who you are, your moniker is at the top of the post.
So the amount of word displays how agitated you are? And I will agree to being excitable if by that, I was laughing through out your screed.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 27, 2009 12:15 AM
I do not thank you for being unable to understand what other people were saying. So you respect my right to free speech. Oh, right, an other attempted dig at me and showing how you are superior to me. This is because your know I want to put a bullet in your head.
Yeah, you are showing so much fucking respect.
I will not be chatting with you at anything. You have shown that it will be a worthless enterprise.
Fuck you and everything you stand for.
I have no respect for anyone who call me a Nazi. And you know shit about how Nazism works.
Posted by: Rey Fox
|
October 27, 2009 12:28 AM
Lion, Janine's eloquence and thoroughness of argumentation is utterly wasted on you. I'll use a great deal fewer words, since reading and comprehending obviously isn't your strong suit. You scream bloody murder about calling someone a twit, and yet are perfectly content to compare us to some of history's greatest butchers. You are a hypocrite, your writing style is near impenetrable, and you STILL don't know what an ad hominem is.
I hope that by now you know that us atheists are going to continue to speak out against the undeserved privelege of religion and its great many abuses in this world, and that we don't give one malnourished rat's ass about scoring style points with hypocritical wankers like you. We know all too well that calls for "civility" and "politeness" from the likes of you are just another means of oppression. Now kindly piss off.
Posted by: zeroangel | October 27, 2009 1:09 PM
If anyone still cares, my chat with Hannity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r_gWY-rCuE
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 27, 2009 1:35 PM
Thanks zeroangel, you did a good job of getting Hannity to stop talking and listen for a few seconds. (Hannity has such an annoying voice.) Hannity started to sound like X-Lurker from the Dembski Does It Again thread in how Hannity can imagine a scenario where the universe gets to the way it is today without a god, but then he dismisses it out of hand as a fantasy not worth considering. A close-minded twit, that's what he is.