Hitchens being an ass

[SRW]

I still think that the quote by Thomas Paine isn't applicable here.

Compare:

"God does not exist, and here's my evidence for why" -- offends people (also arguably not actually provable, but that's irrelevant). Yet, it's someone expressing their idea for the truth.

"She's a black dyke" -- Offends people. Yet, it's expressing their idea for... actually, no, it's just an insult that has nothing to do with what the person is saying, or truth values in general.

I like Thomas Paine. I really do. But in this case, he's not arguing what people want him to argue.

I did not use the Paine quote as a defense for the Black Dyke comment, but to counter the argument; "being offensive has no place in skepticism." As I said, sometimes it does.

If you honest in your skeptical views you may offend someone.

 

[Lonewulf]

How about this?

"being (purposefully) offensive has no place in skepticism".

"purposefully offensive" being defined as "intentionally making a claim for the sole purpose of being offensive."

That remains within context of the OP, and I think might suit Chaos' actual views better.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Chaos.

 

[SRW]

You claim that, by reading my posts, you determined that I think something that

a) I do not think and
b) I thus did not express

This leaves me with no option but to doubt your reading comprehension skills - or your honesty.

Originally Posted by Chaos
"He who cannot make a point without being an ******* does not have a point worth making." -- me

Go on I enjoy being insulted. Not to mention having my integrity questioned.

I guess that is a standard you apply to others and not yourself?

How about you actually show where I expressed what you claimed I expressed. That would work.

I did not make a claim, I simply expressed my opinion of what you wrote, and speculated about your political leaning, based on the content of your post.

If you do not want people to glean meaning from your words than I suggest you stop posting. Or provide clarification when they do not understand. Being bitchy just ain't worken for ya.

 

[Lonewulf]

I have to admit that I take issue with that line too. It's perfectly possible to have a point worth making and be an absolute dick about it. It's also perfectly reasonable to assume that the other party isn't going to listen, and you end up doing your point more harm than good, too.

 

[Chaos]

Go on I enjoy being insulted. Not to mention having my integrity questioned.

Yeah, me too, that´s why I keep coming back here. Sorry that I can´t accuse you of endorsing genocide or something, but I have to draw a line somewhere.

I guess that is a standard you apply to others and not yourself?

I did not make a claim, I simply expressed my opinion of what you wrote, and speculated about your political leaning, based on the content of your post.

Nope. You pulled crap out of your ass, and claimed this was what I said. Until and unless Hitchens actually dismisses criticism as "typical conservative (something)" and I react to that, you cannot know how I react to that - except in that unspeakable cesspool of yours where you grow your certainty that someone who is offended by the use of "liberal" as a pejorative must be okay with the use of "conservative" as a pejorative.

If you do not want people to glean meaning from your words than I suggest you stop posting. Or provide clarification when they do not understand. Being bitchy just ain't worken for ya.

I have no objection to gleaning. I do object when they "glean" something I neither said nor meant.

 

[Lonewulf]

Okay, I'm just going to keep my mouth shut, as it's obvious I haven't kept up with the conversation very well.

 

[Chaos]

I have to admit that I take issue with that line too. It's perfectly possible to have a point worth making and be an absolute dick about it. It's also perfectly reasonable to assume that the other party isn't going to listen, and you end up doing your point more harm than good, too.

Being a dick about something makes anything you say less effective in convincing the intended audience. Unless - maybe - the audience is made up of dicks, that is.

The point of making a point (if you excuse the lame pun) is convincing the intended audience of it. Unless you are just trolling, that is.

Therefore, to me it follows that if you wish to make a point, it is far more effective not to be a dick about it. A point worth making, to me, is a point worth making in an effective way, because otherwise there is no point to making it.

To me, someone being a dick about their point shows me that they do not consider their point important enough to make an effort at presenting it effectively - most likely, that the alleged point is merely an excuse to allow them being dicks.

 

[SRW]

Nope. You pulled crap out of your ass, and claimed this was what I said. Until and unless Hitchens actually dismisses criticism as "typical conservative (something)" and I react to that, you cannot know how I react to that - except in that unspeakable cesspool of yours where you grow your certainty that someone who is offended by the use of "liberal" as a pejorative must be okay with the use of "conservative" as a pejorative.



I have no objection to gleaning. I do object when they "glean" something I neither said nor meant.

As you are confused about what I said; you may want to go back and re-read my posts. If you have a specific problem with something; use the "quote". Because I am simply not going to attempt to make out what you are going on about.

 

[SRW]

Okay, I'm just going to keep my mouth shut, as it's obvious I haven't kept up with the conversation very well.

Your not the only one apparently.




Now wait for it...

 

[dudalb]

There is a diffrence between saying something honest and offending somebody as a side effect, and saying something with the deliberate purpose of pissing people off. I think that this..and a lot of...Hichens comments fall into the latter category.

 

[Lonewulf]

There is a diffrence between saying something honest and offending somebody as a side effect, and saying something with the deliberate purpose of pissing people off. I think that this..and a lot of...Hichens comments fall into the latter category.

Yup, that's what I say. I also do believe that that's what Chaos has been saying as well.

(In fact, I think that all of this has been violent agreement more than disagreement...)

 

[Dorian Gray]

It's hilarious that people are calling each other names and fighting in a thread about how someone was an ass.

Hitchens was an ass. He's a good polemicist. He is frequently right about people. He changes his mind and stance when he's wrong, like he did about waterboarding. He drinks, which messes with all of the above.

Wanda Sykes is generally not funny. Occasionally says something that might be funny at a party or at a bar, said in the spirit of the moment spontaneously. Since it is prewritten and canned, she messes those occasions up too.

Obama or whoever invited her obviously invited her so they could check off three boxes at once. Black, female, lesbian. They forgot to make sure they could check off 'funny.'

That's about it. Oh, that and they should have invited Lisa Lampanelli. She's funny, and knows how to insult people she likes in clever and funny ways. i see no reason why she couldn't insult Rush Limbaugh the same despite not liking him.

Little known fact: The movie Hitch, starring Will Smith, was about Christopher Hitchens. That's a true totally verified fact.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

I didn´t make any claims about myself, so I have nothing to prove there.

I didn´t claim Hitchens was a critical thinker, so it´s not my job to prove that, either.

You can however, point out what exactly he does or says is devoid of critical thinking. Remember, We're talking about the man had the SERE water board him to arrive at a conclusion about water boarding being torture.

That's more than I can say for the peeps at JREF or in the media. So far, you take issue with the lack of Michael Shermer diplomacy, and calling something typical liberal BS. Such a wuss mentality.

 

[SRW]

There is a diffrence between saying something honest and offending somebody as a side effect, and saying something with the deliberate purpose of pissing people off. I think that this..and a lot of...Hichens comments fall into the latter category.

I do not think anyone had disputed this or even attempted to de-ass as it were Hitchens.

My point is assholeness has nothing to do with being a skeptic. One can be both at the same time, at least that is what my wife keeps telling me.

 

[skeptifem]

Or they just think that this:

Trouble is always: unless you're a member of said group, you don't have the privelege of said group to the same degree.

is a stupid idea.
It always has to be some stupid double standard. Equality is good until someone else gets something you don't want him to have.

I don't understand this at all. The group that oppresses others shouldn't be the ones who get to determine when an event is oppression or not. When you aren't the subject of that kind of mistreatment and you don't have to deal with it all the time you are way more likely to downplay the seriousness/completely miss that there is a problem happening at all. Its especially weird for people who don't experience something to claim expertise to the degree that they would erase or ignore the experience of those who have had a lifetime of that experience. It seems like with almost any other issue mistakenly offending someone prompts a god damned appology instead of a bunch of brushing off the other persons perceptions as unimportant or crazy.

Yeah, no ****. And then he'd be tossed off the air, etc.

I don't think so. He has said plenty of sexist/racially inflammatory things on the air. That was so besides my point anyway, my point was that what someone says should be discussed more than who they are. If the hitchens comment is bad its bad. I was getting a little pissed off at the "oh boys will be boys!" vibe coming from so many people about his stupid drunken commentary. With exceptions like satire I do not really see how it is relevant.

Same idiotic double standard exists here too. A black radio host calls some white guy an ignorant cracker, nobody blinks an eye and white folk are just supposed to get over it.

I can say very confidently that perceptions of my ignorant crackery have not hurt me the way racism towards minorities hurts them. I am not going to get hassled by police or turned down for a promotion because of my race/how well I fit the white stereotype. So yeah, I do just get over it because the effect on me personally is extremely minimal. The people who make comments like that don't have the power in society to ruin my life with their opinions so it doesn't have the same weight for me to hear it.

 

[Cobalt]

I don't understand this at all. The group that oppresses others shouldn't be the ones who get to determine when an event is oppression or not. When you aren't the subject of that kind of mistreatment and you don't have to deal with it all the time you are way more likely to downplay the seriousness/completely miss that there is a problem happening at all. Its especially weird for people who don't experience something to claim expertise to the degree that they would erase or ignore the experience of those who have had a lifetime of that experience. It seems like with almost any other issue mistakenly offending someone prompts a god damned appology instead of a bunch of brushing off the other persons perceptions as unimportant or crazy.

I'm sorry, who's being oppressed? People go through their own kinds of ****, so they might draw a personal parallel, appropriate or not.

I don't think so. He has said plenty of sexist/racially inflammatory things on the air. That was so besides my point anyway, my point was that what someone says should be discussed more than who they are. If the hitchens comment is bad its bad. I was getting a little pissed off at the "oh boys will be boys!" vibe coming from so many people about his stupid drunken commentary. With exceptions like satire I do not really see how it is relevant.

Fair enough, we'll just move on.

I can say very confidently that perceptions of my ignorant crackery have not hurt me the way racism towards minorities hurts them. I am not going to get hassled by police or turned down for a promotion because of my race/how well I fit the white stereotype. So yeah, I do just get over it because the effect on me personally is extremely minimal. The people who make comments like that don't have the power in society to ruin my life with their opinions so it doesn't have the same weight for me to hear it.

The existence of affirmative action makes the bolded debatable. You also miss the point here, and in fact restate my own with your own anecdote.

For that matter, Wanda Sykes is doing quite well, I'd imagine, having had a book deal, and done a few TV shows. How is Hitchens moronic comment going to ruin her life?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Having the wrong accent or supporting the incorrect football team/version of Christianity, often results in the same outcome in Glasgow bars.
Maybe Calgary bars are similar?

Really? You can get into a drunken fist fight in Scotland over being Protestant or Catholic? Fifty years ago, I could so see that- but I thought the UK today was quite secular?

 

[skeptifem]

I'm sorry, who's being oppressed? People go through their own kinds of ****, so they might draw a personal parallel, appropriate or not.

gays? blacks? women?

There is a difference between going through some kind of **** and having institutional and social systems in place to make everyone from x group experience **** by default.

The existence of affirmative action makes the bolded debatable. You also miss the point here, and in fact restate my own with your own anecdote.

No I don't miss the point here. You picked out one thing out of a big list of racially unfair things and determined that whites are losing out somehow because someone actually cared enough to try and remedy the racism and sexism in businesses. White people seem to be doing just freaking fine like always. An on paper policy to try and facilitate equality is so far and away from individual powerful people being able to change the lives of racial minorities based on their own preference.

For that matter, Wanda Sykes is doing quite well, I'd imagine, having had a book deal, and done a few TV shows. How is Hitchens moronic comment going to ruin her life?

I was not discussing sykes specifically. I have no idea how having to deal with jerks like hitchens effects her life either, so I won't speculate. Sykes is rich and famous and is not representative of what most go through.

 

[Skeptic]

I don't understand this at all. The group that oppresses others shouldn't be the ones who get to determine when an event is oppression or not. When you aren't the subject of that kind of mistreatment and you don't have to deal with it all the time you are way more likely to downplay the seriousness/completely miss that there is a problem happening at all.

This surely happens, but the opposite extreme -- to wit, the "I'm opressed if I say I am, and that's that" -- is no better. It cheapens the word "opression", making "I am opressed" mean something like "I didn't get something I want".

But just not getting something you want is not "opression", as Stan -- I mean, Loretta -- seems not to have noticed.

 

[Polaris]

Hitchens weighs in.