I LIVE! And I live twice as hard because I'll post tomorrow. Slowly, but surely, my will to do anything that isn't "drink beer" or "lie in bed" is coming back. A greater act of heroism, I've never seen. Anyway, here be the pent up fury.
David Silverman, you god-damned wanker. Everybody hates you. EVERYBODY. For the uninitiated, Silverman is the president of American Atheists, and he is the poet laureate of douche-baggery. Now, this is a hard, nonsensical gig. Being the president of an organisation that need not exist in the first place is hard enough, but using such a superfluous position to alienate virtually everyone but the most fundamental, contrarian nonbelievers takes chutzpah. This is a man will not go to bed until he's pissed off someone, he's just so dedicated to his craft.
Yes, that was a masterclass in poisoning the well, but let me explain: There was a piece of rubble found on WTC ground zero that looks vaguely like a crucifix. Now, the plan is to use said piece of rubble as part of a memorial for the victims of the tragedy and to use it as a symbol for their bravery or whatever. Personally, I find the whole thing tremendously pointless, but people seem to like remembering horrible tragedies, and it'd probably be a tourist attraction, so whatever, go for your life. However, David "The Mighty Douche" Silverman has, on behalf of American Atheists, issued a statement wherein he lets everyone know just how much sand is in his vagina over this horrible offence. Apparently using this artifact is pro-christian and spits on the memories of all the non-christan victims of September 11, thereby marginalising decent folks and turning America into a theocracy blah blah blah. This is knee-jerk nonsense I'd expect from the likes of Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.
First of all, it was a fucking cross-beam. They're pretty common in structures everywhere. To the christians thinking this is some divine revelation of God's will: That's moronic. That's so fucking dense it's threatening to collapse into a black hole. I'll let the whole "thousands of innocents had to die in order for a random piece of steel to slightly resemble the symbol of your particular belief to be present thereby demonstrating the love of your god" rubbish slide for a bit and stick to the far more petty argument of "it doesn't even look that much like a crucifix." Seriously, the arm on the left is basically sliced off into a triangle shape and the proportions don't match. I don't know if the standard christian knows what (or can spell) "confirmation bias" is, but there literally could not be a better example of it. It's a random chunk of metal that happens to look kinda like a pretty common shape that occurs in both nature and architecture. Nothing more.
Secondly, to quote Jon Stewart: "David Silverman... why do you care?" For a group of people that prides itself on being reasonable, rational and logical, you're sounding awfully whiny, pedantic and stupid here. This is a fight you shouldn't have entered and were never gonna win anyway. The average person, religious or not, will think this is a dick move. The average person is going to find this an overly aggressive argument that is grabbing for attention by being controversial. The average person is going to side with fundamental christians now because they're coming off as poor, persecuted victims who are just trying to respect the dead while the big bad atheists piss on their parade. In one fell swoop, Silverman has alienated basically every fence-sitting average joe through a sheer, dumbfounding lack of eloquence.
Let the baby have it's fucking bottle, for god's sake. If they want to use a bit of iron for a memorial, go nuts. If christians want to associate it with their all-loving murder machine, let them go. If the state wants to associate it with their all-loving murder machine... well, you probably have grounds for a rational, calm and well worded argument against that. But even then, it's something that must be handled delicately. That is, if you want people to believe what you believe. I've said it once and I'll say it again, atheist organisations make no sense and are unnecessary. You may as well have an "I Believe The Official 9/11 Story Association" or "The No-Bigfoot Club." By having a set of beliefs and setting up an organisation only for people that share those beliefs, you're different to a church... how? As a support group for a minority belief, sure, but realistically, you're actively promoting the myth that "atheism is a belief, just like any other." "Atheist organisations" that support "atheist positions" and serve the "atheist community" MAKE NO SENSE. Silverman is a wanker, the WTC memorial is not the first steps towards a christian theocracy and it is possible to be an irrational, pedantic atheist, as our friend Dave proves. Good going shithead, I hope you piss your bed tonight.
P.S. This was meant to be one of those "I bitch about something for a paragraph and cover a bunch of little irks" posts but I really caught wind on this one. There may be a Wednesday post as well.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
I Doubt I Have Enough Clout To Pull This Off.
Yeah, it's two days late and not even a real post, suck it up. My shit is a little messed up at the moment, trying to find a steady routine. Also, I've spent the last two days quite drunk because of some personal stuff that I won't go into detail about here. Anyway, stay tuned, I'll have my shit together in a little while.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Look, I'm Still A Bit Jetlagged, I'll Get My Shit Together In A Week Or So
Apparently "coneing" is the new "planking." This is stupid on so many fucking levels, these are levels of stupid I wasn't sure existed. I now have incontrovertible proof that stupidity is a fractal, because of this new fact. I don't even know what "coneing" even is, and I have no interest in finding out.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what it is, it's either gonna be more, or less, or equal to how stupid planking was/is. It's just another thing people do to while away the time while they wait for love or death or taxes, whatever comes first. I mean, I write a blog complaining about other human beings instead of doing something productive, so it's not as if I'm in a privileged position where I can pass judgement on the validity to activities. I'm gonna judge the shit out of you, I personally find planking to be the dumbest thing out, but that's not to say I'm any more or less lame. Relax, mere mortals, plank on.
What does cause my eye to do that unhealthy twitching thing is the idea that "x" is the new "y". It pisses me off because, for one, it's never true. Ever. Like it or not, every fad, every passing interest anyone has, is unique. Yeah, sure, everyone is leaning over the shoulders of the past and copying ideas from yesteryear, but that's just the human condition, you can't not do that. You can be a pretentious snob and palm off any new idea as underneath you because it's just "the new x," but what does that achieve? Planking might be stupid, but the new thing might be alright. Look at Pokemon, that shit is still fun.
That's pretty petty, though. It's really your prerogative how you do anything at all, ever, and if you want to ignore a fad, go nuts. I'm doing it right now. My real problem is how music/film/art/food/anything critics feel that it's a valid comparison or evaluation of anything. I've heard bands called "the new Radiohead," "the new Nirvana" and "the new Replacements," but does that provide any critique, evaluation or new information about the group? Nope, it just provides people a familiar name in which to cram their new experiences into an old box.
We ran out of genres a while back, and so rather than describing experiences via arbitrary words, we now describe them as a new version of an old one. Is this progress? I don't even know. Fuck's sake, journalists, do your job right.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what it is, it's either gonna be more, or less, or equal to how stupid planking was/is. It's just another thing people do to while away the time while they wait for love or death or taxes, whatever comes first. I mean, I write a blog complaining about other human beings instead of doing something productive, so it's not as if I'm in a privileged position where I can pass judgement on the validity to activities. I'm gonna judge the shit out of you, I personally find planking to be the dumbest thing out, but that's not to say I'm any more or less lame. Relax, mere mortals, plank on.
What does cause my eye to do that unhealthy twitching thing is the idea that "x" is the new "y". It pisses me off because, for one, it's never true. Ever. Like it or not, every fad, every passing interest anyone has, is unique. Yeah, sure, everyone is leaning over the shoulders of the past and copying ideas from yesteryear, but that's just the human condition, you can't not do that. You can be a pretentious snob and palm off any new idea as underneath you because it's just "the new x," but what does that achieve? Planking might be stupid, but the new thing might be alright. Look at Pokemon, that shit is still fun.
That's pretty petty, though. It's really your prerogative how you do anything at all, ever, and if you want to ignore a fad, go nuts. I'm doing it right now. My real problem is how music/film/art/food/anything critics feel that it's a valid comparison or evaluation of anything. I've heard bands called "the new Radiohead," "the new Nirvana" and "the new Replacements," but does that provide any critique, evaluation or new information about the group? Nope, it just provides people a familiar name in which to cram their new experiences into an old box.
We ran out of genres a while back, and so rather than describing experiences via arbitrary words, we now describe them as a new version of an old one. Is this progress? I don't even know. Fuck's sake, journalists, do your job right.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Devil's Advocate Time
Amy Winehouse died. Apparently she went off the rails again. I'm a little bummed that she's a member of the 27 club, mostly because everyone neglects to mention Jeremy Michael Ward in that list. Anyway, advocacy of Satan:
I understand it's really depressing to see news of a drunk dying knock a legitimate tragedy like the one happening in Norway off page one, but there are a lot of reasons for why this happened, and part of the blame falls on the people bitching about it. A quick breakdown from a 2nd year Journalism student:
1) News only sells if it's local. I know this is becoming a tad obsolete in the age of the internet, but for the most part, people's interest in news is almost directly related to its proximity to them. Amy Winehouse is a pop singer from an English speaking country who got some pretty decent airplay on our radios and sold albums and concerts pretty steadily over here. Norway is at the other end of the earth. As harsh as it is, when you don't filter your news yourself, you get drip fed the stuff that's going to play on your mind more. For the person with only a fleeting interest in global events, stories sell more and links get more hits when the news is local, and sadly, most people only have a passing interest in the world they live in. Better education and the ease in which we can find news ourselves may buck the trend, but old media is dying a stubborn death.
2) The suspect they have in Norway was on our side. And by "our" I of course mean the owners, editors and investors in news outlets. The money guys who control what we hear. If he was a Muslim extremist, this shit would be plastered everywhere, you couldn't move for hearing about it. Fact is, he's a white, conservative Christian. Rupert Murdoch (as if he doesn't have enough problems heh heh heh) and all those of his ilk are, at present, tugging their collars and shooting each other worried looks. Religious, right wing conservatism has suffered a lot of PR hits recently, and this one is a really big one. A nation of generally calm, secular, left leaning liberals suffering a tragedy at the hands of a conservative whackjob? Makes it really difficult to play the "traditional values" or "God is love" cards. Needless to say, this flies directly in the face of both the political dichotomy and the us vs. them mentality vis the War on Terror that news organisations are trying to feed, and so it'll get slowly, but surely, phased out of our collective discourse.
3) People are talking about Winehouse. Even if you're bitching about it, you're still talking about it. Even if you're posting a facebook status (or... a blog post... sigh...) bitching about why Norway isn't getting as much cover as Winehouse, you're still drawing people's attention to the fact that something happened to Amy Winehouse, and if people don't know what that is, they'll look it up. Editors and publishers realise this, and so pushing big news out for vapid news appeals to idiots who want vapid news, and stirs the pot resulting in more interest in both stories, not just the serious one. Of course, there are steps that can be taken to curb the trend...
Stop paying attention to it. For the love of god. I realise it's incredibly frustrating to see stuff like a celebrity news and reality television get more coverage than serious global issues, but don't draw attention to it. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing the industry I'm trying to enter play dumb to sell copies, but with this one final twitch I want to leave it dead. By not drawing any attention to her death, by making it seem like there is no interest, by letting the story go unread and un-linked, you do more to change the face of news reporting than bitching ever could. News organisations don't care about whining, they care about interest and attention, even bad attention.
It's that simple. Let the proper stories flourish while the fluff fades into unheard obscurity. Create an environment where the only news that's marketable is actual news. If this meme gets widespread enough, it is possible that the face of news reporting changes completely and becomes serious again. Maybe we could get news to a place where I'm OK with paying for it? It could happen.
I understand it's really depressing to see news of a drunk dying knock a legitimate tragedy like the one happening in Norway off page one, but there are a lot of reasons for why this happened, and part of the blame falls on the people bitching about it. A quick breakdown from a 2nd year Journalism student:
1) News only sells if it's local. I know this is becoming a tad obsolete in the age of the internet, but for the most part, people's interest in news is almost directly related to its proximity to them. Amy Winehouse is a pop singer from an English speaking country who got some pretty decent airplay on our radios and sold albums and concerts pretty steadily over here. Norway is at the other end of the earth. As harsh as it is, when you don't filter your news yourself, you get drip fed the stuff that's going to play on your mind more. For the person with only a fleeting interest in global events, stories sell more and links get more hits when the news is local, and sadly, most people only have a passing interest in the world they live in. Better education and the ease in which we can find news ourselves may buck the trend, but old media is dying a stubborn death.
2) The suspect they have in Norway was on our side. And by "our" I of course mean the owners, editors and investors in news outlets. The money guys who control what we hear. If he was a Muslim extremist, this shit would be plastered everywhere, you couldn't move for hearing about it. Fact is, he's a white, conservative Christian. Rupert Murdoch (as if he doesn't have enough problems heh heh heh) and all those of his ilk are, at present, tugging their collars and shooting each other worried looks. Religious, right wing conservatism has suffered a lot of PR hits recently, and this one is a really big one. A nation of generally calm, secular, left leaning liberals suffering a tragedy at the hands of a conservative whackjob? Makes it really difficult to play the "traditional values" or "God is love" cards. Needless to say, this flies directly in the face of both the political dichotomy and the us vs. them mentality vis the War on Terror that news organisations are trying to feed, and so it'll get slowly, but surely, phased out of our collective discourse.
3) People are talking about Winehouse. Even if you're bitching about it, you're still talking about it. Even if you're posting a facebook status (or... a blog post... sigh...) bitching about why Norway isn't getting as much cover as Winehouse, you're still drawing people's attention to the fact that something happened to Amy Winehouse, and if people don't know what that is, they'll look it up. Editors and publishers realise this, and so pushing big news out for vapid news appeals to idiots who want vapid news, and stirs the pot resulting in more interest in both stories, not just the serious one. Of course, there are steps that can be taken to curb the trend...
Stop paying attention to it. For the love of god. I realise it's incredibly frustrating to see stuff like a celebrity news and reality television get more coverage than serious global issues, but don't draw attention to it. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing the industry I'm trying to enter play dumb to sell copies, but with this one final twitch I want to leave it dead. By not drawing any attention to her death, by making it seem like there is no interest, by letting the story go unread and un-linked, you do more to change the face of news reporting than bitching ever could. News organisations don't care about whining, they care about interest and attention, even bad attention.
It's that simple. Let the proper stories flourish while the fluff fades into unheard obscurity. Create an environment where the only news that's marketable is actual news. If this meme gets widespread enough, it is possible that the face of news reporting changes completely and becomes serious again. Maybe we could get news to a place where I'm OK with paying for it? It could happen.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Hangover 2 Review
This is really superfluous, it's been out for ages and frankly, does anyone care? We all knew exactly what it'd be like, and if you didn't, well there's something wrong with you. Regardless, I post my first in donkeys because it's obvious and easy.
I liked the first installment in what I really hope doesn't become a franchise. Yeah, it was purile, it was lowbrow and it was never trying to be a classic. It shamelessly pandered to the guys who liked Dude, Where's My Car? But let's be fair, the character of Alan is unique enough to make the movie worthy of note by itself, and the fact that everyone who saw the movie said some variation of "OMG we totally do shit like that!" (fun fact, you probably don't) or "man, I want my bachelor party to be like that!" (although I don't know why you would, the guy who was getting married missed all the fun and got a vicious sunburn, so really it was his friends who scored) meant it was always going to be a success. Be a cynic here, that film was always going to go gangbusters. It was well written enough to appeal to pretty much everyone except people who dislike it on principle, for example my scriptwriting tutor this semester just past. Come get me, film students.
So, following up a success, you've really got two options:
1) Follow the formula of the original very closely, but try and amplify the aspects that made it successful in the first place.
2) Change the formula and try to make the follow-up as good as the original in its own right, not just piggybacking on previous successes.
If you have a pulse, you probably knew, without knowing anything else about the film, which option the producers were gonna take on this one. Kid A or Ritual de lo Habitual, this ain't (woo music references woo). It may come as a surprise to you, but this doesn't piss me off very much at all; if you went into this movie expecting anything other than a rehashing of the first film in a more extreme setting, you're a moron.
Which leads us to the inevitable bagging out of the film. Let me say before I tear into it, though, it was funny. It was very funny. It was worth the money spent on the ticket (my ticket was bought for me, but I spent 9 pounds at the candy bar, so it levels out, maybe? I don't care, piss off). Go see it if you have nothing better to do.
BUT! Fuck they dropped the ball on this one. The character of Alan went from being an interesting, eccentric individual to a set-piece manchild. The original Alan came off as a slightly tapped but otherwise functional human being. I mean, think about it. He was able to successfully count cards, carry out a drug deal and basically navigate social situations. The Alan in this film is completely inept at virtually everything he does. I know this seems petty, but when I wasn't laughing at something he had done, I was wishing the scene was over because he was pissing me off. It ended up being about 50/50.
Also, there's following a formula and then there's just flat out making the same film. I could wager that, if played side by side, the scenes would sync up almost scene for scene. Of course, they had to try and top themselves somehow, so how do they do it? More boobs, a few penises, lots more swearing and some overt references to buttsex between two men. Oh, and a monkey. Yeah, sure, it's set in Bangkok so it was always going to have some references to ladyboys, but seriously? There's such a thing as trying too hard. It didn't really sparkle like the first film, it was more an unpleasant glare.
Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm annoyed because they wrote a character differently to how I would have liked and tried a little harder to offend me. If my pettiness is surprising, I don't know what to tell you. I study Arts and Communications and practice being judgemental for fun. If you need some sort of succinct rating system, how about "it was pretty OK" stars out of ten? It wasn't a waste of cash, but it's probably not worth a repeat viewing until it's a weekly at the video shop. Alternatively, just download it. It wouldn't be a total waste of disc space.
I liked the first installment in what I really hope doesn't become a franchise. Yeah, it was purile, it was lowbrow and it was never trying to be a classic. It shamelessly pandered to the guys who liked Dude, Where's My Car? But let's be fair, the character of Alan is unique enough to make the movie worthy of note by itself, and the fact that everyone who saw the movie said some variation of "OMG we totally do shit like that!" (fun fact, you probably don't) or "man, I want my bachelor party to be like that!" (although I don't know why you would, the guy who was getting married missed all the fun and got a vicious sunburn, so really it was his friends who scored) meant it was always going to be a success. Be a cynic here, that film was always going to go gangbusters. It was well written enough to appeal to pretty much everyone except people who dislike it on principle, for example my scriptwriting tutor this semester just past. Come get me, film students.
So, following up a success, you've really got two options:
1) Follow the formula of the original very closely, but try and amplify the aspects that made it successful in the first place.
2) Change the formula and try to make the follow-up as good as the original in its own right, not just piggybacking on previous successes.
If you have a pulse, you probably knew, without knowing anything else about the film, which option the producers were gonna take on this one. Kid A or Ritual de lo Habitual, this ain't (woo music references woo). It may come as a surprise to you, but this doesn't piss me off very much at all; if you went into this movie expecting anything other than a rehashing of the first film in a more extreme setting, you're a moron.
Which leads us to the inevitable bagging out of the film. Let me say before I tear into it, though, it was funny. It was very funny. It was worth the money spent on the ticket (my ticket was bought for me, but I spent 9 pounds at the candy bar, so it levels out, maybe? I don't care, piss off). Go see it if you have nothing better to do.
BUT! Fuck they dropped the ball on this one. The character of Alan went from being an interesting, eccentric individual to a set-piece manchild. The original Alan came off as a slightly tapped but otherwise functional human being. I mean, think about it. He was able to successfully count cards, carry out a drug deal and basically navigate social situations. The Alan in this film is completely inept at virtually everything he does. I know this seems petty, but when I wasn't laughing at something he had done, I was wishing the scene was over because he was pissing me off. It ended up being about 50/50.
Also, there's following a formula and then there's just flat out making the same film. I could wager that, if played side by side, the scenes would sync up almost scene for scene. Of course, they had to try and top themselves somehow, so how do they do it? More boobs, a few penises, lots more swearing and some overt references to buttsex between two men. Oh, and a monkey. Yeah, sure, it's set in Bangkok so it was always going to have some references to ladyboys, but seriously? There's such a thing as trying too hard. It didn't really sparkle like the first film, it was more an unpleasant glare.
Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm annoyed because they wrote a character differently to how I would have liked and tried a little harder to offend me. If my pettiness is surprising, I don't know what to tell you. I study Arts and Communications and practice being judgemental for fun. If you need some sort of succinct rating system, how about "it was pretty OK" stars out of ten? It wasn't a waste of cash, but it's probably not worth a repeat viewing until it's a weekly at the video shop. Alternatively, just download it. It wouldn't be a total waste of disc space.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
This Is Going To Hurt Me More Than It Hurts You.
OK, first, a heads up; I'm going to the UK on the 23rd, and the update schedule is gonna be fucked. I may update, I may not, we'll see. In addition, I'm going to be quite busy on the days leading up to the trip, so in addition to this post, there may be one on Monday, there won't be a Tuesday one. Posts on Monday and maaaaaybe Wednesday are contingent on me getting ideas.
So, I bag out a lot of obvious targets here. Rebecca Black, Creationists, psuedo-hippies, Nickelback... yeah, all easy shots. But it occurs to me, occasionally your team needs a good spanking to remind them they aren't safe. So, a post directed at all you retard atheists out there.
Obviously, not every atheist is stupid, blanket statements are for losers. Just as it is with members of religions, so it is with the irreligious. Now, since there's no unified atheist dealie that isn't just plain silly, I can't really say "you're making us look bad!" because there is no "us." I suppose the closest thing I can say is "You're putting a bad light on a worldview I happen to share with you, and I'd very much like you to stop." Again, I don't claim to have some privileged insight into atheism that no-one else has twigged, but seriously, there's a few things I'm surprised you morons haven't realised yet.
1) Atheist means "doesn't believe in any gods or subscribe to any god claims." That's literally it. The next time someone calls birth control or abortion an "atheist issue," I'm going to flip my lid. What exactly makes them atheist issues? Last time I checked, there weren't any gods flushing out unwanted foetuses on the side of their supernatural business. Just because a specific religious group, or a subset thereof, have decided it's an issue they have to take on, doesn't mean you're obliged, as a non-believer, to take up arms against them. You can be atheist and pro-life. It's very easy.
2) You don't have to make a big stink about everything religious. This idea of calling-to-arms nonbelievers to shut down anything religious groups organise is just fucking retarded. I had an English journalist brag to a whole lecture hall full of students how she organised a protest against the Pope's visit to London. Why? What the fuck does that achieve? He has as much right to tour and preach to his choir as anyone else. I didn't see you picketing The Dalai Lama, you hypocritical bitch. If you want to promote atheism as a worldview on the same page as any other religion, by all means, shut down discussion and picket events that promote ideas other than your own. Me, I like debate and free-thought. Make a stink about religious claims, but don't get in a tizzy because the local church is holding a Catholic bake sale. Fuck.
3) You can believe good things for bad reasons. This is kinda the opposite of the whole "I believe in God as a safety net" thing. If the belief that there's a dude out there who watches over you is a helpful psychological tool to keep you on the straight and narrow and help you cope with life, that's fine, go for your life. If said dude starts telling you that gay people should be killed... yeah, maybe rein that fucker in. Anyway, to the point; you might be an atheist, hey that's great, but if your reason is that "I'm mad at God!" (yeah, it happens) or "I wanna stick it to my Mum and Dad!" you're doing it wrong. If your worldview can be changed that quickly for petty reasons, you're a credulous numbskull, atheist or not. Saying it doesn't make you any smarter just as saying you're a Christian makes you any more moral. If you honestly believe that there isn't a God, you just know it in your heart, you can't explain it but you know... sorry dude, you may have evidence behind you but that doesn't stop you being clueless, and frankly there's nothing to really stop you believing anything that seems remotely appealing, because your worldview has no foundations.
4) You can believe in faeries all you like, but you might be a tad confused. I know a few self-proclaimed atheists that still believe in spirits and reincarnation and all that crap, and frankly, I don't know why you're even atheist. It's probably a "don't like organised religion" or "the church opposes a lifestyle choice/aspect of my personality/my sexuality" style thing. You can be separate from organised religions and still theistic/deistic in your worldview, it is allowed. Thing is, if you subscribe to forms of woo that aren't necessarily "religious" in nature, you're just giving me a different target to tear down. Remember, the logic that shits on god claims pretty emphatically shits on any supernatural, spiritual or deistic claims as well. Think long and hard: if there really is such a thing as faeries/reincarnation/the reptilian Illuminati/the unprovable 9-11 conspiracy, why couldn't there be a god as well? What's stopping it?
5) "Lol I flipped off a priest lol"... yeah, well done shithead. I cannot stress this enough, people: HAVE A POINT! Random acts of douchery aren't suddenly made valiant strikes for "the cause" because it was against a religious institution. Why is PZ Myers' thing about putting a nail through the host different from pissing on a church wall? Because he wasn't just trying to get a rise out of people, he was making a point. Yeah, sure, it was a point that was always gonna piss some people off, but there was still a point there and a demonstration to be made. For the record, I'd piss on a church as soon as I'd piss on any other building, because I see public urination as a victimless crime, provided it's done in a discreet fashion and isn't being done to be offensive or vulgar.
That about covers it. I could go on a lot longer but I think this touches on all the important bits. If I think of any more they'll be added to the list, but as far as just a quick cover of the bases, it works well. To recap:
1) Atheism refers solely to god claims, not social issues or maths problems or recipes.
2) Don't just make knee-jerk anti-religious ejaculations; respect their right to express their ideas, and critique the ideas.
3) Have a solid, demonstrable explanation for your atheism that isn't just pettiness or emotional assertions.
4) Don't expect atheist leanings to give you an instant pass on other ridiculous beliefs.
5) If you're going to try to make an anti-religious statement, have a point.
P.S. I'd like to state for the record, this isn't me cooling down on my ragging on religious claims. I don't care how many atheists happen to be douchey idiots, every god claim has shaky logical and scientific foundations, and there ain't no two ways about it. Best you silently shut up and get back to reading a fucking science book instead of crowing about how soft I'm getting, lest I tear you a new arsehole (logically, that is).
So, I bag out a lot of obvious targets here. Rebecca Black, Creationists, psuedo-hippies, Nickelback... yeah, all easy shots. But it occurs to me, occasionally your team needs a good spanking to remind them they aren't safe. So, a post directed at all you retard atheists out there.
Obviously, not every atheist is stupid, blanket statements are for losers. Just as it is with members of religions, so it is with the irreligious. Now, since there's no unified atheist dealie that isn't just plain silly, I can't really say "you're making us look bad!" because there is no "us." I suppose the closest thing I can say is "You're putting a bad light on a worldview I happen to share with you, and I'd very much like you to stop." Again, I don't claim to have some privileged insight into atheism that no-one else has twigged, but seriously, there's a few things I'm surprised you morons haven't realised yet.
1) Atheist means "doesn't believe in any gods or subscribe to any god claims." That's literally it. The next time someone calls birth control or abortion an "atheist issue," I'm going to flip my lid. What exactly makes them atheist issues? Last time I checked, there weren't any gods flushing out unwanted foetuses on the side of their supernatural business. Just because a specific religious group, or a subset thereof, have decided it's an issue they have to take on, doesn't mean you're obliged, as a non-believer, to take up arms against them. You can be atheist and pro-life. It's very easy.
2) You don't have to make a big stink about everything religious. This idea of calling-to-arms nonbelievers to shut down anything religious groups organise is just fucking retarded. I had an English journalist brag to a whole lecture hall full of students how she organised a protest against the Pope's visit to London. Why? What the fuck does that achieve? He has as much right to tour and preach to his choir as anyone else. I didn't see you picketing The Dalai Lama, you hypocritical bitch. If you want to promote atheism as a worldview on the same page as any other religion, by all means, shut down discussion and picket events that promote ideas other than your own. Me, I like debate and free-thought. Make a stink about religious claims, but don't get in a tizzy because the local church is holding a Catholic bake sale. Fuck.
3) You can believe good things for bad reasons. This is kinda the opposite of the whole "I believe in God as a safety net" thing. If the belief that there's a dude out there who watches over you is a helpful psychological tool to keep you on the straight and narrow and help you cope with life, that's fine, go for your life. If said dude starts telling you that gay people should be killed... yeah, maybe rein that fucker in. Anyway, to the point; you might be an atheist, hey that's great, but if your reason is that "I'm mad at God!" (yeah, it happens) or "I wanna stick it to my Mum and Dad!" you're doing it wrong. If your worldview can be changed that quickly for petty reasons, you're a credulous numbskull, atheist or not. Saying it doesn't make you any smarter just as saying you're a Christian makes you any more moral. If you honestly believe that there isn't a God, you just know it in your heart, you can't explain it but you know... sorry dude, you may have evidence behind you but that doesn't stop you being clueless, and frankly there's nothing to really stop you believing anything that seems remotely appealing, because your worldview has no foundations.
4) You can believe in faeries all you like, but you might be a tad confused. I know a few self-proclaimed atheists that still believe in spirits and reincarnation and all that crap, and frankly, I don't know why you're even atheist. It's probably a "don't like organised religion" or "the church opposes a lifestyle choice/aspect of my personality/my sexuality" style thing. You can be separate from organised religions and still theistic/deistic in your worldview, it is allowed. Thing is, if you subscribe to forms of woo that aren't necessarily "religious" in nature, you're just giving me a different target to tear down. Remember, the logic that shits on god claims pretty emphatically shits on any supernatural, spiritual or deistic claims as well. Think long and hard: if there really is such a thing as faeries/reincarnation/the reptilian Illuminati/the unprovable 9-11 conspiracy, why couldn't there be a god as well? What's stopping it?
5) "Lol I flipped off a priest lol"... yeah, well done shithead. I cannot stress this enough, people: HAVE A POINT! Random acts of douchery aren't suddenly made valiant strikes for "the cause" because it was against a religious institution. Why is PZ Myers' thing about putting a nail through the host different from pissing on a church wall? Because he wasn't just trying to get a rise out of people, he was making a point. Yeah, sure, it was a point that was always gonna piss some people off, but there was still a point there and a demonstration to be made. For the record, I'd piss on a church as soon as I'd piss on any other building, because I see public urination as a victimless crime, provided it's done in a discreet fashion and isn't being done to be offensive or vulgar.
That about covers it. I could go on a lot longer but I think this touches on all the important bits. If I think of any more they'll be added to the list, but as far as just a quick cover of the bases, it works well. To recap:
1) Atheism refers solely to god claims, not social issues or maths problems or recipes.
2) Don't just make knee-jerk anti-religious ejaculations; respect their right to express their ideas, and critique the ideas.
3) Have a solid, demonstrable explanation for your atheism that isn't just pettiness or emotional assertions.
4) Don't expect atheist leanings to give you an instant pass on other ridiculous beliefs.
5) If you're going to try to make an anti-religious statement, have a point.
P.S. I'd like to state for the record, this isn't me cooling down on my ragging on religious claims. I don't care how many atheists happen to be douchey idiots, every god claim has shaky logical and scientific foundations, and there ain't no two ways about it. Best you silently shut up and get back to reading a fucking science book instead of crowing about how soft I'm getting, lest I tear you a new arsehole (logically, that is).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)