Sunday, May 3, 2015

Crude Thoughts 5/3/2015

* As much as I sympathize with much of GamerGate, I can't turn a blind eye to the fact that it's got a whole lot of New Atheists in it.  Of that number, you've got a lot of people who were entirely on-board with treating the religious exactly the way the MSM and SJWs are treating GG and company now. That doesn't hurt my GG sympathy, and I hope the experience made them learn a lesson - but I'm too cynical to put much stock in that.

* Three of the six officers charged in the Freddie Gray case are black, and one is a woman, which is going to make the entire case go away in the public eye before long. It's almost as embarrassing for the MSM as finding out that a man named George Zimmerman can be latino. If there's one thing "progressives" hate, it's whipping up a whole lot of angst and outrage only to have their script flipped.

* I can only wonder why Sam Harris thought it was a good idea to openly publish his "debate' with Noam Chomsky. He has to have thought he'd gain something by it - 'Look at me! I'm an intellectual, and you can tell because I'm carrying on a documented exchange with the legendary Noam Chomsky!' But is that really a plus when Chomsky's estimation of Harris amounts to 'Wow, you're quite dishonest and not too smart. Also a bit of a weirdo.'?

* It's usually claimed, rightly, that boycott claims won't work for conservatives and Christians, because there's just too many targets that deserve a boycott. That's true. But I wonder if it isn't nevertheless possible, simply by picking a target from the list - even at random - to make an example out of. If everyone conservative boycotted Disney, even while still using Google, would that have an effect? Of course the problem there is that if you have just a single target, it makes it easier for the opposition to support them as well. Still, experiments are necessary at times.

* It may well be a heretical view, but I tend to assume the resurrected body is going to have work to do. Now and then when talk of the Beatific Vision comes up, it almost sounds as if the eternal future of the saved is going to be 'standing in one place, forever, being happy'. I cannot help but suspect there's going to be more to it than that, even with the Beatific Vision.

* GoFundMe's decision to not allow donations to groups targeted by the LGBT Jackboots isn't too surprising. More surprising is the lack of a clear alternative to the site for conservatives. This is something that is sorely needed - is there nothing else out there? I don't mean a mere alternative to GFM, but one which will expressly serve conservatives.

7 comments:

B. Prokop said...

Hah! I don't know who is the blogger behind Vox Populi, but I loved this little bit from his analysis of the Harris-Chomsky exchange:

1. Harris states something.

2. Opponent presents obvious problem with Harris's statement.

3. Harris claims that is not the correct way to read his statement.

4. Opponent presents historical quote from Harris proving that it is the correct way to read his statement.

5. Harris claims that the quote is not being interpreted properly.

Just replace the name "Harris" with the ludicrously inappropriate moniker of a now-banned poster to Dangerous Idea, and that's a perfect description of how he "contributed" to the discussions on that site (and a major reason why I ceased to respond to him some time back).

Son of Ya'Kov said...

>I cannot help but suspect there's going to be more to it than that, even with the Beatific Vision.

It's not heretical so you are on safe ground. Besides the human soul of Jesus beheld the Beatific Vision & obviously he did a lot.

Crude said...

Hah! I don't know who is the blogger behind Vox Populi, but I loved this little bit from his analysis of the Harris-Chomsky exchange:

He's a bomb-thrower with a lot of views that make people gasp, generally seen as right-leaning, but he's insightful and active. Interesting, at least, and The Irrational Atheist is one of the better anti-Gnu tomes out there.

malcolmthecynic said...

Vox Day can best be described, I think, as a gadfly. Like him or hate him you really can't ignore what he says.

toddes said...

B. Prokop,

Thank you for the information re Dangerous Idea

B. Prokop said...

Well, toddes, that's only one reason why I decided he wasn't worth my time. The two other big reasons were 1) the first (and favorite) weapon in his "debating" arsenal was to call everyone else a liar, and if that didn't suffice, he'd move on to labeling you a bigot and a hater. Nice way to facilitate discussion! and 2) Nothing ever stuck with him. No progress was ever made. You'd patiently explain something one week, and the next week (or even day, heck - next minute!) it'd be like he never understood a word of what you'd said, and you would have to go over the whole damn thing again.. and again... and again....

Syllabus said...

that's only one reason why I decided he wasn't worth my time.

Perhaps the biggest point against DI is that, from this description alone, you could be talking about several different people, though my money's on Paps.