Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

d4m10n said:
People were "put together" during the era of evolutionary adaptation, during which almost all emotional attachments were created between humans interacting in real life. Nowadays, we have all sorts of ingenious ways to *feel* like we are experiencing someone else at an emotional level without them being physically present, and this is in part responsible for our collective cultural obsession with a few exceptionally beautiful and/or talented people.
Click to expand...

I don't see how feeling an emotional attachment to an actor, a writer, or a goldfish translates to "*feel* like we are experiencing someone else at an emotional level". We feel an attachment. It's there, it's real within us. Done.

You appear to suggest that those who lament Williams' death think that Williams cared for them. I do not think this is the case. I'm pretty confident Pratchett is unaware of my existence, yet I can still empathise.

To return to my earlier question, you're sure you do not experience this yourself with anyone or anything that does not reciprocate?
 
Lorentz said:
To return to my earlier question, you're sure you do not experience this yourself with anyone or anything that does not reciprocate?
Click to expand...


No doubt I do, but that doesn't make it healthy or wise. Certainly I'd feel foolish trying to argue that my fav entertainers deserve mainstream news coverage.
 
Last edited:
You see the strangest damn things on even the most high-brow of news channels (I'm thinking SBS and ABC in Oz). Never mind a couple of days referencing the suicide of a cultural icon like Williams.

The bureaus may be working to a different agenda to you Damion. Are you sure you've sent them your memo?

(Mind you it would take more than a cat-up-a-tree story to stop me tuning in to juanita phillips).
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
People were "put together" during the era of evolutionary adaptation, during which almost all emotional attachments were created between humans interacting in real life. Nowadays, we have all sorts of ingenious ways to *feel* like we are experiencing someone else at an emotional level without them being physically present, and this is in part responsible for our collective cultural obsession with a few exceptionally beautiful and/or talented people.
Click to expand...

Ancient Egyptians weren't really worshipping their pharoah with any real emotional attachment? Before the 20th century, beloved husbands, sons, daughters etc. didn't ever die? Village boys didn't fantasize or fall in love with the wealthy noble's daughter from afar? Emotional attachments were always reciprocal?

I don't see how this is tenable. It seems to me, that our ability to form emotional attachments has always been broad enough to include even inanimate objects and abstract concepts.

As to whether this is healthy or not, has it not been shown that the religious (people with an emotional attachment which is never reciprocated) people are just as, if not more happy and healthy than us heathens?
 
I think forming an emotional attachment to a performer whose work has affected you is way less weird than forming an emotional attachment to something like, say, a sports team. Guess which one is way more common?
 
d4m10n said:
No doubt I do, but that doesn't make it healthy or wise. Certainly I'd feel foolish trying to argue that my fav entertainers deserve mainstream news coverage.
Click to expand...

Here we get to the underlying point. Your fav entertainers are not deserving of mainstream coverage just because you feel an attachment, agreed. But if a large part of the populace feels the same, then it is. Mainstream news should cover events that many people care about. That's their job.

Whether people's attachment to a sports club or a dead entertainer is considered "healthy" by you, or even by mental health professionals is beside the point. If a lot of people care about a subject, mainstream news should cover it. The more people care, the more attention it should get. Note I'm using normative terms here; I think this is the very raison d'etre of news. Their job is not to only cover political news, or to bring only stories that are thought to 'educate' people. Nor should it be, unless it's a special purpose outlet with that as its clear goal. Some blogs come to mind, also USSR era Pravda.

This is where I think PZ is fundamentally wrong, not just in his insulting and dismissive jibes at Williams. PZ thinks that his priorities should drive news coverage, rather than how much people care about subjects. I can deplore with him how much people care about subjects such as a Kardassian's hairstyle, but neither of us should try to tell mainstream news they shouldn't cover it, if it's a subject many people care about.
 
d4m10n said:
Certainly I'd feel foolish trying to argue that my fav entertainers deserve mainstream news coverage.
Click to expand...

A bit of a straw, isn't it?

ETA: Lorentz's last post conveyed more eloquently what I tried to say earlier . It's very reasonable for the news to cover what people care about, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Williams wasn't a loved, talented performer with a real influence to many. It's not about the celebrity status or fandom (at least he's not my favorite actor nor stand-up comedian by far), it's the influence. When Michael Jackson died, I wasn't emotionally moved at all, but I absolutely understood why it was all over the news. Do you think how the news covered Jackson's death was unwarranted as well? I'm trying to figure out whether you're against any coverage of cultural icons and their demise or you just disagree over Williams influence and legacy?

Just the other day I stumbled upon "The real teachers inspired by Dead Poets Society".
 
Last edited:
I suppose we just disagree on what the news media are supposedly good for, Lorentz and TeapotCavalry. I want the public to have fewer low-information voters and more well-informed voters, that means covering stories which may impact public policy, such as the war against ISIL and police abuse back home. I really don't see any point in talking about popular entertainers (including sports teams, Quinn) outside of the subsections and countless speciality sites dedicated solely to covering entertainment news, sports news, celebrity gossip, etc.

As to Williams' legacy and influence, it's weird how people give all the credit to the one actor who was cast from a wide array of contenders. Who is to say that Dead Poets wouldn't have been even more inspiring with a different lead actor?
 
Last edited:
Octavo said:
Ancient Egyptians weren't really worshipping their pharoah with any real emotional attachment? Before the 20th century, beloved husbands, sons, daughters etc. didn't ever die? Village boys didn't fantasize or fall in love with the wealthy noble's daughter from afar? Emotional attachments were always reciprocal?
Click to expand...



The era of evolutionary adaptation predates Egyptian civilisation (and all other civilisations) by a fair bit, not to mention the formation of a wealthy class of nobles.

I'm glad you brought up the pharaohs, though, because it is an excellent example of how natural human emotional responses can be used to subjugate people by creating a sense of affinity and devotion that flows only one way. Relatedly, Christopher Hitchens penned an excellent work entitled The Monarchy: A Critique of Britain’s Favourite Fetish which is available for only £1.99 on Kindle.
 
1 donation of $15. That's impressive.

That means that nobody, or just 1 person, from the super secret forum has donated anything, despite the fact that they've been having a vote on what charity to donate to, meaning that there's been more than one person voting. And I'm just assuming that that's 1 donation. Back when I used to busk the first thing I'd do would be to put my own money in my hat. People are more likely to give if they see that someone else already has.

We are Atheism Plus, a movement of atheists passionate about social justice.
Click to expand...

"I'm passionate about social justice. Wait, you want me to donate $5? Oh, well, I don't care that much..."
 
So far there have been two donations, one for $10 and another for $5. Personally, I'm tempted to chip in $5 myself, if it means I can commission Grimalkin to draw up some unicorn erotica.
 
Nope, 1 donation of $15:

$5USD

Digital drawing of whatever

Grimalkin will draw anything. Anything. No bigger than 12" by 12" and 300 dpi (or 3600 x 3600 pixels). Okay, anything not illegal, hateful, or getting there, by his discretion. Please include what you want drawn and what size you want (if not the default) in your comment when you donate.

0 out of 10 claimed
Click to expand...

$10USD

Alex Conall flash fiction

Alex Conall will write you a story between 250 and 275 words to parameters you provide, to be posted publicly on zir Dreamwidth. Multiply the contribution amount and Alex will multiply the minimum word count by the same number: a $20 donation will get you a 500-525 word story.

1 claimed
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.
 
d4m10n said:
I suppose we just disagree on what the news media are supposedly good for, Lorentz and TeapotCavalry. I want the public to have fewer low-information voters and more well-informed voters, that means covering stories which may impact public policy, such as the war against ISIL and police abuse back home. I really don't see any point in talking about popular entertainers (including sports teams, Quinn) outside of the subsections and countless speciality sites dedicated solely to covering entertainment news, sports news, celebrity gossip, etc.

As to Williams' legacy and influence, it's weird how people give all the credit to the one actor who was cast from a wide array of contenders. Who is to say that Dead Poets wouldn't have been even more inspiring with a different lead actor?
Click to expand...

Not weighing in on PZ's comment, but rather just your last paragraph: I had the same conversation with my wife a few days ago. Williams was the actor who portrayed a character created by Tom Schulman. Schulman has explained that the script is based partly on real people, such as his childhood teachers at Montgomery Bell Academy.

With that in mind, I'm not exactly sure why Williams would be given credit for inspiring people, rather than Schulman, or Schulman's english teachers who were the real thing.

I've had similar conversations about Christopher Reeve.
 
d4m10n said:
As to Williams' legacy and influence, it's weird how people give all the credit to the one actor who was cast from a wide array of contenders. Who is to say that Dead Poets wouldn't have been even more inspiring with a different lead actor?
Click to expand...
blutoski said:
With that in mind, I'm not exactly sure why Williams would be given credit for inspiring people, rather than Schulman, or Schulman's english teachers who were the real thing.
Click to expand...

It's akin to asking why is Johnny Cash's Hurt immensely more popular than Nine Inch Nail's. And thinking there's potentially someone else out there who could top even Cash's version. Maybe, sure, I guess. But Cash is the one who made the song something special. And Williams was the one who acted the role into the memories of millions. While we're at it, we could credit everyone who worked on the films he made a good performance in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom