…and this is a 
Who else but Christopher Hitchens?
This year, Richard Dawkins himself will present AAA's Richard Dawkins Award to Christopher Hitchens, who may accept in person or in absentia as his schedule permits.
Christopher Hitchens is one of the most prolific modern writers and exponents of atheism; he has appeared on every major news and political television show offering opinions on political and social issues. He has contributed to Vanity Fair, The Nation, Slate, the New York Times Book Review, and Atlantic Monthly, among many other publications. His books include Hitch 22: A Memoir, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.
Hitchens was born in Portsmouth, England and educated at The Leys School in Cambridge and Balliol College, Oxford. He holds an honors degree in philosophy, politics and economics. Hitchens emigrated to the United States in 1981 and became an American citizen in 2007. In June 2010, Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer.
The award will be given at the Texas Freethought Convention in October. I'll be there, and I'm looking forward to it.
Comments
Posted by: bwweaver.math
|
July 28, 2011 6:11 PM
How did Hitch manage to beat out Rebecca Watson?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 28, 2011 6:15 PM
Are you some kind of ass, bwweaver.math?
That's a rhetorical question. You clearly are.
Posted by: DrivenB4U
|
July 28, 2011 6:27 PM
Perhaps then something may finally lure you to our heehawin' creationist schoolbookin' state.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 28, 2011 6:29 PM
Women are not funny and Western women do not have it as bad as Middle Eastern women and so should not mind the minor slights. As much good as those two have done, it shows how far we have yet to go.
Posted by: bwweaver.math
|
July 28, 2011 6:31 PM
PZ, not as big of an ass as Richard Dawkins or especially Christopher Hitchens.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 28, 2011 6:31 PM
I'll be there, Squidly OL. Perhaps you'll allow me to carry your staff?
Seriously, if you pretend you don't know me, I'm going to cry. Small, sad, child tears.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 28, 2011 6:35 PM
Blow it out your ass, bwweaver.math.
Posted by: needfulcarp
|
July 28, 2011 6:42 PM
@ #1 bwweaver.math
Spot on! Why is she again being held down by the phallocracy? This is tantamount to rape! Maybe they should check their PRIVILEGE at the door and stop trying to mansplain away herstory! Vagina pride!
Posted by: PP
|
July 28, 2011 6:43 PM
Has anyone else noticed how the Richard Dawkins Award is awarded alternating male and female recipients?
AAA and Richard Dawkins can certainly be commended for this.
Posted by: terry
|
July 28, 2011 6:45 PM
Well done & congratulations to the Hitch! Completely well deserved if for nothing else that the debates & books.
Posted by: kompani101
|
July 28, 2011 6:50 PM
An excellent choice.I may even say inspired.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 28, 2011 6:50 PM
IIRC, last Christmas Dawkins cited Hitchens as his 'hero' of 2010. The logical recipient.
I hope to be in Houston this October for the convention. I also hope Hitchens is there. Or can send out a live-cam acceptance speech. Or can give a thumb's up.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
July 28, 2011 6:56 PM
God damn the MRA trolls are awful.
Go back to ERV you shits, you can't even let a thread about Hitchens go without trolling it? How pathetic.
FOAD.
...
I'm torn. It's expensive and I'm out of vacation time, so I'm not sure I can even get as far as Houston for this :( And then also...
Posted by: Grumps
|
July 28, 2011 6:57 PM
In my loneliest, drunkenest, needing to hear something coolest moments either Dawkins or Hitchens have supplied the goods, so "like".
Posted by: pteryxx
|
July 28, 2011 7:01 PM
Wow, I hope Hitchens is there, too. I shall redouble my efforts to attend.
Posted by: bwweaver.math
|
July 28, 2011 7:12 PM
Don't get your hopes up, pteryxx. I doubt he'll be able to take time out of his busy schedule of stumping for neocon warmongers.
Posted by: mferrari
|
July 28, 2011 7:14 PM
Does anybody know how Hitchens has been doing lately?
Posted by: Warm Little Pond
|
July 28, 2011 7:18 PM
Congrats Hitchens, you deserve it!
Posted by: janiceclanfield
|
July 28, 2011 7:20 PM
bwweaver.math
Please go die in a fire.
Posted by: Island Adolescent
|
July 28, 2011 7:26 PM
I thought bwweaver.math was going to be the worst comment here. Oh, how needfulcarp's #8 proved that wrong.
Fucking dolts, the both of you.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 28, 2011 7:31 PM
Needfulcarp, the only thing you are useful as is as chum.
Posted by: needfulcarp
|
July 28, 2011 7:34 PM
@ #21 Janine - and apparently the only thing you're useful as is a bootlicking sychophant. What's your point?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 28, 2011 7:36 PM
Those people who start spamming random threads with their sneering, privileged bigotry are going to get banned in the future. There is no excuse for puking on a thread about a well-deserved award for Hitchens with this crap, and I'm not going to tolerate a gang of knee-jerk MRA toads around here.
Posted by: Marta
|
July 28, 2011 7:36 PM
No matter how off point or irrelevant the topic, the trolls have something to say. Even when it's about Dawkins. This is really unbelievable.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn1ZF7yzePDe0HDTU0zXryIbpg3PZ9BHUM
|
July 28, 2011 7:47 PM
I guess "bomb all the religious people to death" is one way of advancing atheism.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/orWEX_Y_wpUs50Ypn_ZfPhBmpNiDaGvMqw--#6fb13
|
July 28, 2011 7:47 PM
As Hitch might say..."Thanks for that suspiciously terse and grudging introduction."
I love Hitch. I think he's on almost everything. That's why he's hated on the Left and mistrusted on the Right.
Posted by: TV200
|
July 28, 2011 7:47 PM
I may not agree with Hitchens on some things, but I do enjoy his religious polemics. So, congratulations to Hitch.
Posted by: Eternal
|
July 28, 2011 7:49 PM
Well deserved, i'm sure the true measure of his words will be the people they have had a positive impact on. None the less, recognition of it is always nice.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 28, 2011 7:53 PM
Needfulcrap, so fucking sorry that I am not licking the boots of some fucking MRA. Fucking die already, you fucking waste of meat.
Posted by: James_Evans
|
July 28, 2011 7:55 PM
If I could, I'd award Hitch Galactic Emperor status, though he'd probably politely decline. But right now I'd really rather give him back full health.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/orWEX_Y_wpUs50Ypn_ZfPhBmpNiDaGvMqw--#6fb13
|
July 28, 2011 7:56 PM
to revise and extend my remarks, as they say in the US House, I meant to say in #26, " I think he's correct on almost everything."
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 28, 2011 8:01 PM
needfulcarp, still playing the sexist chill girl, I see. Here's some very good advice: shut the fuck up. Now and forever. Not only are you a pointless sexist at this time, you don't seem to be able to recognize what is on topic and what is not.
I'm still fucking tired of you. Take a short walk off a tall cliff, cowgirl.
Posted by: bwweaver.math
|
July 28, 2011 8:01 PM
PZ, if you would bother to read my other comments, you would realize that comment #1 was an anti-Hitchens and to a lesser extent anti-Dawkins "sneering, privileged" comment. I am no MRA, I agreed with Watson's side of the aftermath of Elevatorgate.
If this thread isn't the time for holding Hitchens accountable for being a right-wing buffoon, then when is?
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:06 PM
do you ever notice that when we mention someones greatness we dont say their race, sex or orientation, these are descriptors saved for our losers. if someone is a success its never because they are a woman or man or black or white, yet when they are a loser they lost because they are a black woman, or latin man. such a shame dont you think?
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:10 PM
*oh yeah, im not sorry losers didnt get the award and winners did. thought i should clarify
Posted by: HappiestSadist
|
July 28, 2011 8:12 PM
Actually, I think bwweaver.math's points are pretty good. Hitchens has written some great stuff, but he's also said some hideously sexist shit, as well as some war-happy rightwing bullshit. Even if bwweaver's a concern troll like whoa.
Posted by: needfulcarp
|
July 28, 2011 8:15 PM
@ #32 Caine - what? No! You all totally changed my mind with your calm, logical and well thought out arguments. I tried to use the lingo correctly, but I'm still new to all this. Was there some dog whistle that I forgot to include? Oh well, maybe I'll get it right next time. Aren't we supposed to rally around our cause du jour, especially when she is being slighted by the head of the manosphere?
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:15 PM
if women want equality, it isnt sexist. sexism would be coddling them BECAUSE they are women.
Posted by: HappiestSadist
|
July 28, 2011 8:17 PM
Needfulcarp, please join the other carp in the depths of a lake.
Terravibes: your word salad is moldy and rancid.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
July 28, 2011 8:17 PM
Hitchens isn't a right-wing buffoon any more than he's a utopian left-wing buffoon. If you insist on classifying everyone in stark black & white, left & right, then you're the buffoon. Hitchens has complex stances on politics, but with a strong tendency to the romantic "overthrow all tyrants!" That's what got him on the wrong side for Iraq. A very mistaken case of taking one's enemy's enemy for a friend.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:22 PM
what is "word salad" that means and says nothing. i just entered a blog with some very hateful avatars, re-read. now if i'm to treat an avatar differently for ANY reason, i am now segregating them and treating them different, just because you cant see that doesnt mean i should look away.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 28, 2011 8:22 PM
While there's a lot that Hitchens says and writes that I don't like, there's a fair bit I do like. He does deserve the Dawkins Award from the AAA for his support of atheism.
Oh yes, on one minor OT note: Comment by needfulcarp blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
July 28, 2011 8:24 PM
Shorter terravibes: Look mommy! i can use the internet!
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id
|
July 28, 2011 8:24 PM
Colour me unimpressed. I'll grant that when it comes to sheer rhetorical flair, there are few who are his equal. But it makes me very uncomfortable for an atheist group to be publicly honouring someone who has been such a staunch advocate for militarism.
Good without god? Making Hitchens our poster boy really doesn't help that argument.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 28, 2011 8:25 PM
needfulcarp will not be gracing this blog any more.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:25 PM
i find hitchens writes from his perspective, sometimes this way sometimes that way. i find nothing wrong with such a willful opinion. lets save party lines for politics shall we?
Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
July 28, 2011 8:27 PM
I know next to nothing about Hitchens, apart from the Ghoul of Calcutta.
And, judging from the non-chickenshit bigot posts, there's no consensus.
Any suggestions on a good first book/article/wev of his to read?
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:30 PM
"god is not great, how religion poisons everything" might be a good one #47
i greatly disagree with it, and thats what makes it a good read to me
Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
July 28, 2011 8:31 PM
Okay, i gotta admit, I'm getting a good giggle out of the strawfeminist flinging bigots.
its fascinating how they immediately make it clear that they're using words they don't understand and concepts they haven't grasped to attack phantom enemies for the arguments they're not making. And, for this, they consider themselves . . . intelligent, i guess. or super edgy and cool.
Ever watch a little kid try to pretend to be grown up and threatening. that's exactly what needy and terra remind me.
Someone pat them on the hat and give them a cookie so they'll be distracted for a while.
Posted by: bwweaver.math
|
July 28, 2011 8:35 PM
@Cath #40:
Hitchens endorsed George Bush for re-election as President of the United States in 2004. He didn't endorse Barack Obama in 2008 until Obama proved that he was sufficiently hawkish. The first of those two in particular are particularly unjustified. If there can be any litmus test, it has to be supporting George W. Bush after getting 4 years of a heavy dose of how terrible he was.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:36 PM
ive got all the "cookies" i need, im already at a loss, where did that one poster go, why are their posts gone but the horrid posts to them remain? are we discussing this award or this desire many have to dis-empower women by making them treated differently?
man we have come such a long way to go back like that, i dont get it.
let me know if anyone wants to discuss hitchens and his work, potentially even his merits on winning this award.
ill go ahead and nap through the bias and childish name throwing and indirect verbal assault that clearly smothers this board.
how old are yall?
Posted by: fatboy
|
July 28, 2011 8:37 PM
Trolls will take their business elsewhere when websites quickly and consistently remove their blather. Not until.
Posted by: Childermass
|
July 28, 2011 8:37 PM
bwweaver.math @ #1, stop being a jerk. I see no reason or justification to be abusive towards Miss Watson.
That goes for the other side as well: no need to speculate that Elevator Guy was out to assault her or to provide her anything more than coffee. I see no evidence to think it is likely that either one of them was intentionally doing something wrong. He was almost certainly someone, who like most everyone one planet at one time or another, acted rather stupidly concerning a person he was attracted to. That is life. Watson was not only within her rights to say "no" but was right to say "no."* It was and is Elevator Guy's obligation to comply. So long as he does, that should end the matter.
*This is not a contradiction my suggestion that _we_ not speculate after the fact. For Miss Watson, it was 3am and avoidance of even a tiny risk was well advised. In other words, just because we should not speculate that x stranger is out to get us though that does not mean we outright given them the chance. I am 99.999% sure that if I sent P.Z. my credit card number that he would not use it. Oddly enough, I am still not giving him the chance. ;-) What Watson had to protect was more valuable than her credit card number.
(And of course, even if there is no safety issue, if Watson is not attracted to the person than that is Elevator Guy's tough luck.)
Elevator Guy if you are reading this, I might be terrible person to give advice, but we have something in common: we are shy. But next time, don't make the approach in the middle of the night. Yes ask in private, but not out of the sight of other people. I hope you have not been hurt, but if you are: please don't blame her. And better luck next time.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:39 PM
lol @ "science blog", really? pflrrrt
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 28, 2011 8:40 PM
terravibes,
There are a fair number of multilingual people here. However none of us understand gibberish. Please translate your gibberish into English.
Posted by: Lord Setar
|
July 28, 2011 8:42 PM
Childermass #53:
Oh please. You honestly expect us to believe this line any more the thousandth time it's trotted out than we did the first? Wrong. He knew what he was doing, evidenced by his opening with "don't take this the wrong way, but..."
At any rate, can you please take this to some other thread where we can continue this conversation? I rather like Hitchens' work (outside of anything to do with Islam or the Iraq War that is) and would like to talk about it here rather than let the thread get derailed by the umpteenth incarnation of an argument that is only not dead because you and others like you throw well-known and obvious implications out the window when said implications make you look like a creepy asshole.
Posted by: Childermass
|
July 28, 2011 8:43 PM
As for the Award, God is not Great was not my cup of tea (though I did learn a few things), but how he has handled his illness was an inspiration and that alone makes the award worth it.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:44 PM
@ #55, i understand you and i, you understand only you. great diss on "me"
clearly the topic here is acceptable personal assaults
indirect at that
ok, my bad, i had no idea this was a third grade science fair, how is the acne?
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id
|
July 28, 2011 8:45 PM
'Tis,
The cupcake you're addressing shared this stunning insight with us upthread:
I seriously doubt terravibes will be able to do as you've asked.
Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
July 28, 2011 8:45 PM
Childermass - congrats on being the least self-aware person on the internet.
Posted by: ASRSPR
|
July 28, 2011 8:45 PM
So, uh, back on the topic of Criticisms of Hitchens: I'm familiar with his neoconservative hawking and his advocacy of atheism. Can someone point me to his alleged sexism (per #36)?
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
July 28, 2011 8:47 PM
Yes, I agree that Hitchens was dead wrong on Iraq and Bush. But I don't agree that he is a right-wing buffoon.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:47 PM
people are claiming he is extreme right one minute and extreme left the other, read this thread, i dare you
now, he isnt a politician, so he can cross traditional party lines that bind so many of you
a gang of thugs on a science blog, how clever
so no one wants to discuss him or this award, but rather me
hahahaha
god i hope a moderator gets here soon
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:50 PM
im hoping hitchens aint reading, such a shame a story about him became a thread about me
seems a trend around here, ive been perusing for weeks, yall cant keep on topic without direct (moderated) and indirect (overlooked) insults starting with the very first post.
i admit about ten percent of posters actually reply to the content offered, till they are mocked.
it seems a mirc chatroom would be much more cost effective, just a thought.
Posted by: bwweaver.math
|
July 28, 2011 8:52 PM
It's blog posts like the link at the bottom of this message that make me say that the Atheist of the Year Award should go to Noam Chomsky instead.
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-is-christopher-hitchens-right-wing.html
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 8:55 PM
@ #65 i def align with noam more, thanks for sharing the link/idea/thought
Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
July 28, 2011 8:57 PM
OMG my inner hippie utopian loves me some Noam! (and Vonnegut, that's a story for another day).
Thx for that link.
Posted by: Lord Setar
|
July 28, 2011 8:57 PM
terravibes #63:
What "traditional party lines"? A commenter complaining about how the regulars are a gang of thugs without any examples to back this up, how clever. It's not like this isn't a meme here or anything, after all. Delusions of grandeur, much? The thread's not centered around you, unless somehow all the posts not responding to you just don't count... Whatever makes you think that anyone moderating this blog would take the side of an idiot who blathers on pointlessly about how great he is and how stupid everyone else is?
Posted by: David B
|
July 28, 2011 8:59 PM
I'm re-reading God is not Great at the moment, and have seen a lot of Hitch on Youtube.
I don't agree with him on everything, but then I don't agree with anyone of everything, nor anyone agree with me.
But I do agree with him concerning his antitheism, and he has been a formidable proponent of it.
At the moment there couldn't be a better choice for an award.
David
Posted by: Lord Setar
|
July 28, 2011 9:02 PM
bwweaver.math #65: Please excuse me, but I regret to inform you that heresy does not exist in this sphere and disagreement with figures in the sphere -- even prominent figures -- is both common and encouraged.
Now would you kindly stop trying to act as though we treat anyone like an infallible pillar of morality and reason? It's really quite insulting to treat us like we're as closed-minded and short-sighted as you are...
Posted by: HappiestSadist
|
July 28, 2011 9:06 PM
Well, ASRSPR @ #61, he does claim that women aren't funny : http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701 , for one.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 9:06 PM
@ 68 have you not read this thread? would you like me to count how many replies are on the story and how many are not? i will
ive never claimed anyone was stupid, lose that reach, ive challenged the content. the medium (internet blog) and people (avatars) are irrelevant
@david #69, i agree fully. ill add i believe atheism or theism is still a reflection in the individual. this is why i like noams take better. id rather not blame and individuals beliefs for their actions. atheism and theism can indeed be observed from an angle without blame, like so many things.
actions and thoughts are beautiful things, blame and excuses are not, i do feel hitchens uses both a little too much. ill err and blame individuals, not their inner beliefs.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 9:13 PM
@ illuma #67 vonnegut hooorah!
"so a woman of high standing in the community wanted an elaborate house built for her dogs, so i drew one up and showed her, three stories running water, all of it, she said she couldnt understand such things, i told her i would give the blueprints to her husband who could give it to her preacher who could give it to god, and if god got time surely he could explain it to her"
so i para'd it, but that said novels to me, like he does, in a matter of sentences.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 28, 2011 9:13 PM
I admit that most of my admiration for Rich/Hitch stems from the eloquence with which they say things that I already agree with. I also have to admit that despite my disapproval of the US middle-east policy, Hitchens' endorsement of it made me question my own position.
Posted by: Rawnaeris
|
July 28, 2011 9:19 PM
I hope I can see the Hitch accept this award in person. Getting vacation time in my job is a bit of a bitch.
Is it just me, or are the Cupcakes getting more and more annoying and much less amusing than they were a few years ago?
Posted by: Lord Setar
|
July 28, 2011 9:22 PM
terravibes #72:
Heh, heh. I'm smelling irony. Because there is no such thing as an implication. It's not like you weren't trying to get at that by talking about gangs of thugs, being bound by "traditional party lines" (whatever those are) or saying that you hope a moderator gets here soon... Yeah, once among how many attacks on the regulars here?
Oh, yeah, and for someone who claims to challenge content, you seem to be very content to abandon such a challenge when it's taken up. Or did you forget that I asked you to explain what "traditional party lines" you were talking about?
That's great and all, but it's also hypocritical considering the content of this comment, all of #64, half of #63, all of #58, 54, 51, and 41...and your other comments (66, 48, 38 and 31) contained very little in terms of even just words compared to the ones where you went after the commenters, with the possible exception of 31. Even then, 31 and 38 don't really touch on the topic at all either. You really are one to talk.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 28, 2011 9:24 PM
'Tis:
Agreed 100%.
Posted by: Lord Setar
|
July 28, 2011 9:26 PM
Rawnaeris:
That's what happens when all you see is the same arguments re-worded five hundred different ways to sound different.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 9:29 PM
@ "lord" (lolz) did you say something? i missed it. perhaps i dont understand your layout, ive not spent eternity here distracting threads, humor me.
write as if you are writing for the person you are writing about writing to.
thanks in advance, id hate to see you writing to an idiot in a way you believe the idiot wont understand, as thats pretty weak
ive got a few minutes in between actual content, and your predictable "talking down to" reply
say something, ill f5 i promise, say nothing again, i may not reply
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 28, 2011 9:36 PM
Rawnaeris #75
Ou sont les trolls d'antan ?
Posted by: Lord Setar
|
July 28, 2011 9:42 PM
terravibes #79:
Excuse me? It's my fault that you missed the question I asked at the beginning of the comment you were responding to?
You seriously expect me to believe that? Fuck off, you disingenuous sack of shit, and don't come back until you're willing to hold a discussion rather than frustrate everyone by implying they're stupid only to turn around and play stupid when someone breaches the paradigm of 'ha ha you're all idiots who only attack me and not my points' you tried to set up.
Comment by terravibes blocked. [unkill][show comment]
Posted by: Rawnaeris
|
July 28, 2011 10:02 PM
@ 'Tis,
Oui, And I think Lord Setar has the right of it, they all start to sound exactly the same.
C'est la vie.
Posted by: shoshidge
|
July 28, 2011 10:11 PM
As a long time fan of the Hitch, I get a little irate when he is decribed as a neo-con or a turnoat for his support for the Iraq war.
For a good understanding of his motivations in this regard, the chapter in his memoir Hitch-22 titled, 'Mesopotamia from Both Sides', very cogently argues that his support was based on his liberal principles.
There are a lot of good reasons to think the war was a bad idea, especially in hindsight, but labelling any pro-Iraq invasion supporter as right-wing is just dumb given that in this instance, the US and it's allies joined forces with the Iraqi secular left, in order to overthrow a rabidly right-wing, fascist dictator.
The problem is that some folks on the left equate militarism with conservatism, this position ignores that facts that some of the 20th century's most aggressive military dictatorships were Marxist, and many of it's most famous pacifists were deeply conservative,(eg. Gandhi, Dalai Lama).
Simply being pro-war does not make you right-wing.
Posted by: Miss Ingrid of Internet, RR and UW (TM)
|
July 28, 2011 10:15 PM
There's a Freethought Convention? In Texas???
*weeps with joy* You bet I'll be there.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 28, 2011 10:18 PM
terravibes,
When someone who can't apply periods or capitalization to their prose criticizes others for their lack of cogency I grow suspicious. Perhaps you would like to try again?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 28, 2011 10:34 PM
PZ, you need an image background like the gumby one, for those red-letter announcements. Maybe with the monty python god-puppet head and some clouds? It'd add more glorious authoritah to your banhammer!
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 28, 2011 10:41 PM
shoshidge writes:
There are a lot of good reasons to think the war was a bad idea, especially in hindsight, but labelling any pro-Iraq invasion supporter as right-wing is just dumb given that in this instance, the US and it's allies joined forces with the Iraqi secular left, in order to overthrow a rabidly right-wing, fascist dictator.
I think Hitch's motives were good but he simply underestimated the malevolent naivete of the rulers of the US. And then was stiff-necked in insisting "I was right!" long after the discussion had moved past the motive for the war and into its effect. I wish he had come down stronger as a critic of the horribly inept way it was prosecuted and, even though he's been a critic of torture and some of the horrible shenanigans that have gone on, his relative silence on the topic makes it easy to accuse him of being an apologist. I suspect Hitch would say that he got more wrapped up in the atheism debate and hasn't taken the time... To say that he's obviously no fan of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney would be an understatement, but I wish he'd turn his guns toward our foreign policy, again.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 28, 2011 10:53 PM
For mine, Christopher Hitchens is admirable, and I find it rather pleasing that he is given another( well-earned) encomium.
--
For those who cannot separate their opinion of him from the cogency of his activist atheism, I feel pity.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 28, 2011 11:35 PM
I didn't know Hitch went to Balliol. I thought lord Peter Death Bredon Wimsey was their most famous alumnus.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 28, 2011 11:37 PM
@ # 81 calm down, profanity gives people looking for a reason to not listen to you, to not have to.
you say anything?
besides
"blah blah blah expletive blah my small wenis blah blah expletives/slurs" (why tolerated i dont know, ontopic, hardly)
i saw troll speech deleted
what was the topic?
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 28, 2011 11:40 PM
terravibes,
Yep, it looks like you aren't saying anything after all.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 28, 2011 11:41 PM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 28, 2011 11:45 PM
oh ffs
lazy
And complaining about tone means you don't have to actually address anything said.
Posted by: UpAgainstTheRopes
|
July 28, 2011 11:49 PM
I've been following Hitchens work for a very long time, and though I may disagree with some of his positions in the past *cough* *iraq war* *cough* he was the one who made me realize the importance of belief and to have the chops to back up what it is that I do believe.
His thoughts on vicarious redemption hit me like a 12lb hammer one night while watching a show called lockup. He's the reason I went from a passive indifference to actively challenging my my beliefs, strengthening my arguments for what it is that I believe, seeking out other atheists, and coming out as a nonbeliever.
Well deserved and I raise my glass to you, sir.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 28, 2011 11:52 PM
You know it is possible to respect someone's opinions on one thing and not on others.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 28, 2011 11:52 PM
I seem to be experiencing a Bill Maher deja vu Groundhog Day flashback phenomenon.
The whole "we can't appreciate his contribution for which award X is being awarded, but have to instead condemn him because of disagreement on unrelated issue Y" thing. It was stupid 2 years ago, and it's stupid now.
Posted by: DLC
|
July 28, 2011 11:53 PM
Congrats, Hitch. you deserve it.
Posted by: ohhkellee
|
July 28, 2011 11:59 PM
I'm very saddened that I won't be able to make it to the Freethought Convention in Houston this year. Being fairly new to the atheist scene & learning the different types of conferences that take place, I was extremely excited about attending this one since it's so close to me (I live outside of Dallas).When the prices were posted the other day, I saw that it's a bit too pricey for me to afford this time around.
Congratulations to Mr. Hitchens! Aside from Prof. Myers, he is the reason I am here today as a self-proclaimed atheist. He definitely deserves this. Almost brings a tear to my eye.
Posted by: terravibes
|
July 29, 2011 12:02 AM
am i not saying anything?
or am i not replying to anything?
this isnt my first unfortunate ride on a greyhound
i appreciate those who have spoken about the content here, and i am sorry my presence has hijacked this thread with so many, perhaps thats what they refer to when they claim others troll
i see through it, laugh all you want, perhaps rub your decoder rings together and laugh that i misread the addy here
i wont say how pathetic it is, or how ironic the addy is, as long as you keep jerking about me, not the topic
w0w, scienceblog eh? clever, yes, say a lot of nothing, what ape is in charge?
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 12:09 AM
terravibes #thread
You are a poorly written troll, who is too legitimately dense to be a good poorly written troll.
Or, to translate from English to Retard for you: u dumb and boring lol pls go away
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 29, 2011 12:22 AM
terravibes:
scienceblogs.com is the host, PZ is the blogger, this is his blog, you're the troll.
(Tricky distinctions, those)
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 29, 2011 12:33 AM
Well, the inaugural Dawkins Award went to an anti-scientist, too, but I don't know if they actually meant for that to set a precedent.Posted by: ???????????
|
July 29, 2011 1:16 AM
I don't think anyone has mentioned Hitchens' writings on literature. That is some of his best stuff.
Posted by: Lord Setar
|
July 29, 2011 2:10 AM
terravibes #90:
Don't even try anymore, you've just proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're a disingenuous ass.
#99:
I did so and you ignored it. This sounds like the sort of 'appreciation' I got from people who would ask me for rides, pot and booze yet ignore me when the subject was anything other than rides, pot or booze.
Not like I expect much from someone who 'misses' an entire relevant section of comment (while complaining about not seeing many relevant comments) while responding to the rest, when called on it tells the writer to change their post style (even though the comment was structured based on formatted blockquotes and a simple re-read and response would have ended the problem) rather than re-reading the post themselves, and when told that this is so much disingenuous bullshit goes off and tone-trolls. Really, I don't know how people like you expect to be seen as anything but disingenuous trolling assholes.
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 29, 2011 3:15 AM
Sad that he is unable to show up in person.
I knew he was in bad shape but he seems now to be uncapable of even the briefer trips.
I fear there may not be a Christopher Hitchens this time next year.
Posted by: ekwhite
|
July 29, 2011 3:34 AM
BWeaver@5:
There - I fixed it for you!
Posted by: evilisgood
|
July 29, 2011 3:50 AM
Illuminata # 47
This is my first post on Pharyngula. I signed up here to recommend "Why Orwell Matters" by Hitchens. It is some of the best literary and political criticism I have ever read. Thanks for your time.
Posted by: ExpatEgghead
|
July 29, 2011 4:18 AM
Please stop feeding the trolls. Please. Shunning works.
Posted by: Hirnlego
|
July 29, 2011 4:43 AM
Hitchens is brilliant on religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGSRjO9SzvU
He fully deserves it.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
July 29, 2011 4:58 AM
ExpatEgghead, sorry, but it is Pharyngula tradition to feed trolls to make them explode.
Posted by: PeterParker
|
July 29, 2011 5:02 AM
It was during the Iraq invasion that I first paid attention to Hitch's writings. He is the only one that ever made a case in favour of the invasion that I found hard to refute. The problem was, of course, that the American government did not share Hitch's noble intentions. They were the ones to support the tyrant to begin with. Nevertheless, his use of rhetoric, both in tone and content was, and still is, formidable. Hitch intimidates with tonal eloquence and surgically precise argumentation in a way that makes most of us mortals sound rather childish in comparison.
Hitch deserves this award, without a doubt. He has never been afraid to stray away from the pack to follow his own train of thought to whatever conclusion it might lead him, regardless of whoever would end up displeased. His clarity of thought and command of the English language should be something to aspire to.
Just got "Love, Poverty, and War" in the mail, and am waiting on Hitch 22.
As for women not having a sense of humour, there Hitch is clearly wrong.
If it were so, how do you explain man's continued success at procreation?
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 5:10 AM
Cath the Canberra Cook Author #110
Please don't apologize for that... celebrate it.
It is one of my favorite things about this place. I've always hated the "ignore the trolls so they go away" thing since my first moment on the internet (not to mention a seeming troll might actually have a point from time to time, so if it isn't argued honestly a good idea might fade away).
I've always loved hammering trolls via reason and stamina till they've died. And Pharyngula is the only place I've found where I don't have to do it alone.
Good times.
Posted by: It's Fuckin' Meatloaf (But you can call me Meat)
|
July 29, 2011 5:11 AM
Sometimes it is said that this blog is an echo chamber. This thread exhibits this behavior, though not in the way the creo-idiots think.
What I see echoing here today is a textbook Ad-Hominem attack on Hitchens. Just because he has some shady views on certain political subjects, does not mean his atheism is dodgy too. He deserves this award for his atheism alone.
On a lighter note, maybe he should send his brother Peter to collect the award, that should be quite amusing...
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnZ-0EkmEQjRPVskeYR7EUWHZkfSquX81U
|
July 29, 2011 5:22 AM
What has Hitchen's opinions on war got to do with winning an Atheist prize on an Atheist blog?
Why do so many people conflate Atheism with far-left politics?
And who could be so stupid to suggest that Chomsky should've won? A good personal friend of Hezzbollah's Nasrallah has no place on an Atheist award shortlist...
Posted by: nemo the derv
|
July 29, 2011 5:37 AM
I think it might be a good time to point out ,while Mr. Hitchens did support war against Iraq, he also went to exhaustive lengths in criticizing the way that was fought. To categorize him as a warmonger is to dimiss his decades of experience and commentary on the middle east.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
July 29, 2011 5:50 AM
Meat @113:
No, what you're perceiving is what Rawnaeris was complaining about in #75 - almost every thread these days gets hijacked by just one or two jackasses. And even though most of the total people commenting, including just about all of the regulars, are broadly supportive of Hitchens, the volume of posts by the idiots (terravibes and bwweaver in this case, with a few from needfulcarp) and the replies to them makes it seem like a lot more are against him than there are.
The same thing happened with every thread about Elevatorgate too - there was usually only a couple of MRA idiots on each thread, with different ones on each (presumably some were sockpuppets), but that was enough to send everyone flying off the handle at their bigotry and idiocy.
It does make the comments a lot less interesting to read when it's all people banging against the brick wall of one person's skull.
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 5:51 AM
It's Fuckin' Meatloaf (But you can call me Meat) # 113
The whole "echo chamber" thing needs it's on fallacy category, if there isn't one already that I'm not considering in my had-a-bunch-of-drink state.
For an easy rebuttal: if there were a site or community where everyone where correct in everything they said, it would, by necessity, end in echo's, given the same premises.
1+1 = 2.
Or, if 1 is a and b is 2, and + is $ and = is %:
a$a % b.
You can say something in different ways, but objectively they mean the same thing.
Furthermore, the same proposed hypothetical community would "echo" anything that is "correct".
New information that is correct is provided, and the only response from this hypothetical community would be in agreement.
My point is, when I hear "echo chamber" I immediately realize the person is a fucking idiot.
Echo chamber does not equal indoctrination/cult/lol everyone there agrees with it therefore everyone there is blindly following some bullshit.
"Fucking epistemology, how do is it work??"
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 5:58 AM
Jebus, regards my last:
"its own", "where everyone were"... ect.
Forgive the horrible grammar, like I said, I've been drinking.
Posted by: It's Fuckin' Meatloaf (But you can call me Meat)
|
July 29, 2011 6:14 AM
@Midnight Rambler & @tkreacher
Ick, I meant to say that the echo chamber thing was just a perception. I did see an Ad-Hom which I percieved to be reitrated by certain people, which seemed like an echo to me. Still just a perception, however.
Semantics is hard sometimes....
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 6:18 AM
It's Fuckin' Meatloaf:
No bro', I wasn't challenging you, I absolutely got what you were saying.
I was agreeing with you and elaborating my take.
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 6:25 AM
--cont
Albeit with absurd where-meaning-were mistakes and the like.
But I was in agreement, nonetheless.
My lord but does my written word goes retarded when I've had far too much (just enough?)to drink.
Posted by: It's Fuckin' Meatloaf (But you can call me Meat)
|
July 29, 2011 6:41 AM
@tkreacher
Thanks bro. It's just that I have a learning disability regarding comprehension (which manifests itself occasionally), and I thought that this was one of those times.
The echo chamber thing really irritates me, because for one, I can't find the meat of the comments when idiots start repeating the same crap all the time. It gets kind of acute with me, because of the above disability. Secondly, It's because the people who generally complain about echoes are basically gulty of said behaviour. One troll says "echo chamber", and the next few repeat it.
I'm here to learn, not listen to trolling twats.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
July 29, 2011 7:14 AM
Oooopsie! Meat, first thing to learn - gendered insults are very much frowned on here. No twats please! Variants on douche and arse are generally OK.
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 7:27 AM
Cath the Canberra Cook #123
Watch me "echo" this, Meat...
My assumption about you is that you didn't mean to use the term "twat" in a privileged way. You seem to be open to a reasonable discussion.
Now, think about how you used that term. The way you used it meant a "twat" was a bad thing. Why? Why would a slang term for a vagina be an insult?
Consider the context.
Posted by: It's Fuckin' Meatloaf (But you can call me Meat)
|
July 29, 2011 7:55 AM
@Cath & @tkreacher
Sorry for using that word. I didn't mean it in a priviledged way, I apologise unreservedly for my idiocy. Sometimes priviledge is subtle, and mistakes are made. I have learned a valuable lesson here. I hope some of the MRA's here can learn from it too.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
July 29, 2011 8:21 AM
Awwwww, it's just so lovely when someone responds like a sane human being instead of blowing up into a massive multi-blog multi-thread screaming insult-fest. Yay kindness and sanity!
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 8:21 AM
@ Meat:
Holy Saint Mary and the spear in her son's side...
I just realized I was guilty of the privilege I was pointing out to you.
I called you "bro'" based on your sing-in, when your name makes no explicit claim to your gender at all.
Fuck... I'm still working on this myself. I used "bitching" in another thread, then corrected myself to "bleating" when I realized what the fuck I had intimated...
I noticed the privilege even further a couple days ago, when somebody said, "no sir" and quickly changed it to "no ma'am" on Judge Judy which I happened to be watching.
It stood out so blatant because I'd heard that same mistake in the military dozens of times... but only to women officers. I've never heard a male authority accidently referred to as "ma'am" in my life.
Same thing with the Judge shows I've ever seen. I've seen female judges mistakenly, and quickly corrected, referred to as "sir", but have never seen a man referred to as "ma'am" by mistake.
Fucking remarkable how ingrained that shit is.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 29, 2011 8:32 AM
*falls over in amazement*
*gets up, looks at reasonable discussion again*
*falls over again*
Posted by: Mr.Kosta
|
July 29, 2011 8:53 AM
Meatloaf, eh? Welcome to these parts. I hope you have fun.
As for Hitchens, well, although I totally disagree with his stance regarding Iraq and Bush, his influence and dedication to atheism is undeniable.
And besides, the courage with which he faces his illness is a true example to follow.
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id
|
July 29, 2011 9:25 AM
Carlie,
See, there's hope yet. I think we need to remember that while the MRAssholes may have been loud, obnoxious and disruptive, they were far outnumbered by the people opposing them.
It'll get better.
Posted by: daverezaei
|
July 29, 2011 9:46 AM
As much as I admire Dawkins, giving Christopher Hitchens the "Richard Dawkins Award" however, is a little bit like awarding the Rebel Alliance the "Han Solo Award".
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
July 29, 2011 9:59 AM
nemo the derv @115
Right on. Here´s a couple of quotes for you.
"As one who used to advocate for the liberation of Iraq (perhaps more strongly than I knew), I have grown coarsened and sickend by the degeneration of the struggle by the sordid news of corruption and brutality ... and by the paltry politicians in Washington and Bagdad who squabble for precedence while lifeblood is spent and spilled by young people whose boots they are not fit to clean."
"I think it´s a certainty that historians will not conclude that the removal of Saddan Hussein was something that the international community ought to have postponed any further. (Indeed, if there is a disgrace, it is that previous administrations left the responsibility undischarged.)"
Congrats to the Hitch
Posted by: Art Vandelay
|
July 29, 2011 10:51 AM
"The offer of absolute certainty; the offer of complete security; the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way, is an offer of something not worth having. Don't think of it as a gift...think of it as a poison chalice and push it aside no matter how tempting it is. Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way."
-CH
While I loathe the idea of indoctrination, that right there is one sentiment that I'll try to brainwash my children with until the day I die.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 29, 2011 10:57 AM
I often wonder what commenters who complain of 'echo chambers', 'groupthink', 'hivemind', and 'bootlicking' behaviour think they're trying to accomplish. From an argument point of view it's completely useless: it's tantamount to daring people to agree with you for the sake of disagreeing with others. The only people it might work on are actual sycophants who honestly only echo other's opinions but could be compelled to switch allegiance.
Further, bucking the current trend just because it's the current trend is no more skeptical than going with it. Testing alternative hypotheses is a valuable scientific endeavour; playing devil's advocate is a freshman philosophy major's game. A good argument or sound conclusion is not made less sound because more people make it than fewer.
Moreover, terms like 'echo chamber', 'groupthink', 'hivemind', and 'sycophant' are so ubiquitous as insults, especially on the internet, that they're liklier to identify their maker as unoriginal than his or her target. Creationists use those terms to describe students who accept the ToE, for fuck's sake.
Finally, in most cases, the 'echoed' perspective decried here is the uncommon one. As I mentioned on another thread, the top grossing comic in the US is Jeff Dunham. Yes, the guy with the "Achmed the Dead Terrorist" ventriloquist act. That bit is one of the top ten most viewed videos on YouTube. Calling yourself 'edgy', 'brave', or 'freethinking' for being anti-PC is about as accurate as thinking you're 'edgy', 'brave', and 'freethinking' for putting ketchup on your French fries.
Echo chambers in media do exist, of course. But one would need to provide more evidence than a handful of slurs by a parrot like needfulcarp to accurately identify one.
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 11:04 AM
Don Quijote #132
I've been to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and dealt with some things there, for similar reasons and justifications as Hitchens has written about.
I agree with Hitch more than most of the people I would consider peers, and more important, friends.
He's been wrong on bad information, but he isn't the right-wing "hawk" some people cast him as.
This is not to say he is perfect with perfect information. Nobody is, for fucks sake.
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 11:15 AM
Brownian #134
I'm going to off topic quote mine the shit out of you right now:
The most frequent I've run into this is in regard a particular person is with Shakespeare.
I can't even recall how many times I've heard someone disparage Willie because "he is so popular".
In reality, I must assume, it is because "learnin' different ways werds was put together" is kind of difficult, so it was much easier to be teh rebel about the man.
Pitiable fucks.
Nothing in the world I've found more artistic than the way that asshole* turned a phrase.
*Only an asshole because I don't think I can beat him
Posted by: NotMyGod
|
July 29, 2011 11:15 AM
I don't see eye-to-eye with Hitch on everything, but I'll miss him. I don't think anyone can fill those shoes. I wish I were the kind of person that could! God is not great.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 29, 2011 11:44 AM
I don't think that's a quote-mine, tkreacher. I suspect there's a similar thought process going on.
I don't want to take this too much further off-topic, but...
Q: How many scenesters does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It's a really obscure number; you probably haven't heard of it.
FIFY.
;)
Posted by: tkreacher
|
July 29, 2011 11:55 AM
Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites #138
HAR!
I only meant quote-mine in that I only quoted part, not that it was the normal assholery inherent in a quote-mine...
More important was the off-topic I knew would ensue if I brought up the name Shakespeare.
In that regard: NOOOOOOO, let's not get into it.
HAR!
Posted by: Usagichan
|
July 29, 2011 12:09 PM
So Brownian, Shakespeare was really Bacon (and not just an Elizibethan ham)?
I always fort Chris M quilled his stuff in between spyin' 'n brawlin'.
Posted by: hackerwayneb
|
July 29, 2011 12:44 PM
I would not recommend reading Hitch unless you are a sophisticated thinker with a sense of humor. He will challenge your world view and the weak minded with either be immediately repulsed or will be so overwhelmed as to not question his premises or his world view.
Hitch is a wonderful choice for this award. If you need a regular dose of Hitch read DailyHitchens on the internet.
"if you only have friends with no faults you will have no friends"
Posted by: Samizdat
|
July 29, 2011 1:39 PM
evilisgood @ 107:
I'll second "Why Orwell Matters." Great political criticism indeed, and also a very entertaining read.
Posted by: That Writer Guy
|
July 29, 2011 1:52 PM
Having grown up in the 60s and been repeatedly kicked out of school for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance, back when atheists were associated with that nutjob Madeline Murray O’Hare, I was so proud when atheists came out of the closet, led by articulate, intelligent people such as Dawkins and Hitchens.
And then both of them proved to be sexist bastards, without even the excuse of following the dictates of a misogynist deity. And too many atheists either don’t believe it or don’t care. I’m ashamed to be called an atheist these days. As a person of color, I’m just waiting for one of y’all to say something racist, and follow up with, “You misinterpreted my intention because you have a chip on your shoulder.”
The more fool I for hoping that atheists were classier than Christians.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 29, 2011 1:57 PM
OMG
It turns out that, and this may come as a shock,
ATHEISTS ARE PEOPLE TOO
Posted by: That Writer Guy
|
July 29, 2011 2:08 PM
@ P.Z. Myers #2:
Why is bwweaver.math an "ass" for posting "How did Hitch manage to beat out Rebecca Watson?" I thought it was funny, and it's even a legitimate question. Why not Rebecca Watson instead of Hitchens and his sexist statements? Why is even asking the question deserving of an attack? You could've said "Not funny," or "Hitchens deserves it because of (XYZ)."
When Christians say theirs is a God of Love, I point out the many Bible stories of their God's hatred and intolerance. Now when I talk about the New Atheists, Christians can point to Dawkins' and Hitchen's opinions of women. That makes me want better public faces for atheism. Including female faces.
Forget this. This kind of ego is why can't stand hanging out with other atheists.
Posted by: That Writer Guy
|
July 29, 2011 2:15 PM
@ REv. BigDumbChimp #144:
Not sure to whom you're directing that, but, if by chance you're saying that because "ATHEISTS ARE PEOPLE TOO" they occasionally say stupid $#*t, including the odd misogynist statement, and therefore it's to be forgiven, because they're people, then Klu Klux Klanners and Neo-Nazis are people, too.
Doesn't mean I have to like what they say.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 29, 2011 2:49 PM
I may be wrong, That Writer Guy, but PZ's hasty critique of bwweaver.math was less about ego than an attempt to stamp out another MRA flame war. There have been a steady stream of sexist asses 'round here of late.
Otherwise, I don't disagree with anything else you said.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 29, 2011 2:59 PM
Forgiven? Who said anything about forgiveness?
Some people are assholes, some people are atheists and sometimes these circles intersect.
But that doesn't mean all assholes are atheists or all atheists are asshole.
It's fine to point out the assholes if you see them. But if you're pointing at the asshole next to me, even the one I'm talking to, you better be sure you're not including me unless you've got good reason.
But if you feel the need to paint a highly heterogeneous group of people with the words of a few of it's loudest members, feel free.
But I'll feel free to point at you.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 29, 2011 3:12 PM
Of course. But the question the sheeple in the echo chamber never ask themselves is: who was Francis Bacon really?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 29, 2011 3:16 PM
A funky spooky dark painter.
Posted by: Art Vandelay
|
July 29, 2011 3:29 PM
I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm pretty you've completely missed the point here. Ignorance, misogyny, bigotry all exist universally. If you don't want to hang around with Atheists, good luck finding another group of people that you'd want to hang out with. Within any valid sample size of people, despite their world views, you're not going to avoid these things.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 29, 2011 3:32 PM
Are you kidding me? That's what the NOAA wants you to believe.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 29, 2011 3:32 PM
yep
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
July 29, 2011 3:35 PM
ThatWriterGuy @143: I see that at least one atheist is oozing self-righteousness all over the place as well. I'm so ashamed to be called an atheist now.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 29, 2011 4:03 PM
Yes, but in equal amounts? Are atheists, as a group, less misogynistic or bigoted than the average?
Really? I didn't see self-righteousness at all. Given that this place has become such a magnet for MRAs that we get stomp-happy over anything that looks like an MRA on the horizon (witness the reaction to comment #1 which, though ambiguous, turned out to be a criticism of CH rather than of RW), is he that out to lunch for critiquing the movement?
Yeah, we're not monolithic, but let's not pretend we don't have any group characteristics, or that some of those characteristics may be less than desirable.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
July 29, 2011 4:20 PM
Well, the surprising thing is that PZ would even blog about the Richard Dawkins Award at all, as supposedly, thanks to Elevatorgate, there's now this BIG RIFT that's going to DESTROY the Skeptic movement entirely, and the name of Richard Dawkins is supposed to be mud now on Pharyngula, forevermore.
Posted by: Utakata
|
July 29, 2011 5:29 PM
It's actually not surprising at all amphiox @ 156, because this announcement wasn't about Elevatorgate. But announcing one prominent athiest rewarding another prominent athiest who is deathbed sick currently. What is wrong with that?
Agreed, both Dawkins and Hitchens in question have stated things makes those of us want scream "WTF?" while doing a double facepalm. But that does not distract from their accomplishments and the good they have done for humanity as a whole. Debate their idiocies when it's time to debate it. But let us not derail them, when they are actually doing something non-offensive if not good and has nothing to do with their contentious issues.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlUlWFyLHlmw5dstzdeg7ozcx7ZmRgXTsg
|
July 29, 2011 8:28 PM
What were the criteria, generally speaking? For example, what did Hitchens do that PZ or Hemant did not?
I like Hitchens, but the award seems a bit contrived. Almost like an employee of the month at Costco.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
July 29, 2011 9:00 PM
I hadn't heard of Hitchens' Orwell book; have just now ordered it from Fishpond. Now there's another author whose politics get misrepresented - an anti-communist, anti-fascist socialist, how confusing is that? :)
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
|
July 29, 2011 9:11 PM
I dunno—describes me perfectly....
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
July 29, 2011 9:20 PM
That sound you hear is my attempt at irony whizzing over your head. (And I really thought that an oblique reference to Edgar Allan Poe would have cinched it).
Ah well, this is why I do not have a career as a comedian....
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 29, 2011 9:20 PM
fascist socialist
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
July 29, 2011 9:32 PM
yin yang
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
July 29, 2011 10:35 PM
Rev Battleax, makes sense to me too and I'd put myself in that group too. But it doesn't make sense in the current US political discourse. (If you can use a word like "discourse" about the teaparty tantrums.)
Posted by: Utakata
|
July 30, 2011 12:45 AM
That's nice you where trolling amphiox. So I will focus my reply on those who think like your "irony". And I strongly suspect there are. /shrug
Posted by: HaloStarbucks
|
July 30, 2011 1:03 AM
This just in:
The reason Rebecca Watson has both a mouth and a cunt is so she can piss and moan at the same time!
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
July 30, 2011 1:16 AM
Oh, dear, HaloStarbucks. Female anatomy FAIL.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
July 30, 2011 2:36 AM
desertfroglet
No fail, just Unknown™.
The human female anatomy DownThere™ is a big mystery. All kinds of stuff happens down there.
Posted by: KingUber
|
July 30, 2011 2:18 PM
People are still harping on about this Rebecca Watson thing? Is it such a big deal?
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 30, 2011 2:22 PM
KingUber,
So long as people like you can say things like that, yes there is something wrong.
Posted by: KingUber
|
July 30, 2011 3:03 PM
I just don't see why people have to keep bringing it up in a completely unrelated topic
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 30, 2011 4:30 PM
KingUber,
This conversation is bigger than RW and EG. It concerns a very large fraction of the atheist online community, some because they want things to stay the way they are, others because they would see things change. When you dismiss it as not a big deal or question why it has to be part of every lengthy discussion you are acting like you would prefer things to stay the way they are. Does that describe you?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
July 30, 2011 5:07 PM
KingUber, the big deal is in the utterly despicable, indefensible, rabid misogyny in the response to Watson's initially completely mild and measured comments, and in the complete disgusting level of intellectual dishonesty used in argument by those misogynists, supposedly skeptics, that would have made any creationist proud.
This issue is about the fundamental equality of all persons, perhaps the one most important and fundamental of all liberal values.
And that is never not a big deal.
Posted by: Jack Lewis
|
July 31, 2011 12:12 AM
There is no RW, EG guy discussion. At least not on the skepchick blog where polite dissenting views are filtered out by the moderator all the time. The problem with polite dissent is that it doesn't make the case that you have to be a complete asshole to disagree with RW, so clearly these posts don't get through. Still the fan base can go on showering her with praise and admiration for things like talking 70 minutes with someone without doing any research on who that was and finding potential interesting subjects to bring up and then making a whole blog article on how the discussion was weird because the other side didn't agree entirely with her. What is so weird about that?
Posted by: KingUber
|
July 31, 2011 12:29 AM
I just think people are making a big deal over nothing. Some guy on an elevator creeped her out, she mentioned that it creeped her out, then a bunch of people started a huge flame war for no reason.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
July 31, 2011 5:07 PM
KingUber,
I gather that you don't understand. That's why I asked you a question. Do you want to keep things the way they are? Acting to silence people, whether you agree with their concerns or not is acting to maintain the status quo.
Posted by: LittleJonBoy
|
August 23, 2011 1:02 PM
Dear PMZ, I can empathise with your frustration re some of the respondents to this site.
I believe Chris Hitchens to be a brave beacon of sanity and logic in a world overwhelmed with a voiciferous majority of supernaturalists.
Like PMZ I don't wish to hear their illogical ramblings either and as CH would doubtless agree, it is these people and their (perhaps) genetically based inability to choose fact over 'feeling', who act like an anchor to progress.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
August 23, 2011 2:30 PM
And many, many, many responses have explained to you in exquisite detail why it is not nothing.
It is a big deal because it is NOT nothing.
Care to make an intelligent reply as to why you are rejecting or ignoring all those explanations and continue to think that it is "nothing"?