48 comments posted · 13 followers · following 0
The use of foul language is considered profane by a sub-set of the population. This (admittedly irrational) offense is a result of the fact that some people are:
A) Strongly persuaded by moral taboos against profanity
B) Made uncomfortable by strong displays of emotion
C) Enjoy keeping others in line by imposing moral rules on others about what one can or cannot say
If one accepts that this is the social reality that one is living in, it follows that one must use one's judgement about how and when one is to violate taboos of profanity. I would suggest that doing so is a perfectly legitimate use of one's social power, the question becomes what circumstances, what purposes and what outcomes are served by this decision to "cuss."
So in other word's if you want to cuss, cuss, but be aware of how and why you do it and to what effect. If you are going to cuss, cuss so it counts!
WE KNOW the truth of this, this is what our movement has to OFFER the nation. If anything is going to turn this culture around it’s US.
But rest assured, if we succeed, the Christians will take credit for our work ;-)
If we atheists REALLY BELIEVE that our approach to understanding reality is better (and I for one do), then we need to USE the political landscape to our advantage. One of the ways we can sell our worldview is as a solution to the decline of the US. I even believe it to be true. The REASON the US is in decline is because we have allowed the religious right to undermine our relationship with knowledge in favor of “tolerance.” Tolerance has become a rationalization for permitting willful ignorance.
THIS HAS TO STOP AND WE HAVE TO STOP IT.
We know from social psychology that people will literally believe that they see things that are not there in response to peer pressure, yet we try to argue rationality as its own reward. The reason the churches are winning is simple: They have no scruples about using peer pressure to make people believe things that serve their political ends.
Given that the human need to conform and the human need to belong are SO strong that they can cause hallucinations in subjects, why should we expect rational argument to prevail?
We know we are right, but we need to use effective tactics for spreading our worldview, or it’s just going to get driven underground as the US sinks further into willful ignorance. While that sounds alarmist, we do have some aces up our collective sleeves :
If I’m right about this, I would be glad to serve as her therapist. She clearly needs help managing this inner conflict, and I am qualified to provide that service.
That said, my first impression of Cupp was that she’s a plant by the religious right to discredit the atheist movement: A good-looking vacuous woman who offers shallow and ill-informed arguments about the world. I haven’t seen anything to challenge this impression. She CAN’T be on TV because she is well-informed and has interesting things to say – because she doesn’t. She MUST be on TV for some other reason. She is nice to look at though – probably that’s all it takes.
The primate brains that want to use power and privilege for advantage also want safety, equality and social justice. Bringing out the best in us requires taking a realistic appraisal of human nature into account.
This political agenda does not invalidate these scientific findings however.
Personally, I think that it is a mistake for feminist intellectuals to ignore these findings – any argument for patriarchy can be turned on its head, and feminism has suffered many political setbacks for the simple reason that it is hard for the average person to relate to a message that says that your experience of gender is somehow not ok.
On the one hand, feminism promotes a value I agree with: Gender equality.
On the other hand as an intellectual tradition, feminism has largely been a post-structuralist ideology. Post-structuralism is largely an exploration of how language and the assumptions inherent in our use of language structure the power and privilege in our society. I also agree with this set of ideas.
The problem is that post structuralism largely stops there. There is lots of research that show how biological processes (for example, hormones) shape our brains and shape our behavior, and how these processes differ between the sexes. What's more there is lots of research coming out pointing at developmental processes at work in both sexual preference and gender identity. This new research is based on the (Well founded) assumption that consciousness emerges from our bodies, and that human beings are not blank slates to be written on by culture alone.