logo Sign In

CatBus

User Group
Members
Join date
18-Aug-2011
Last activity
27-Dec-2025
Posts
5,986

Post History

Post
#1077329
Topic
Religion
Time

Also (speaking to darth_ender) I actually try to steer clear of seeing anything that might put Nye in the same category as Dawkins in my mind, although I realize it’s a possibility. I’ve got a lot of fond memories of his TV show and would hate to taint that. Without any evidence whatsoever, I like to think he simply falls afoul of Carlin’s advice “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” If that’s not exactly how things went down, well, I don’t really need to know that. But I’m perfectly fine hating on Dawkins.

Post
#1077268
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

Well, I’m not going to pick up the Conservative slack now that all the others have a-"banned-oned ship. I’m too busy to get into debates these days, and I’m in agreement with the liberals here over much of our current situation anyway, so I’m just going to let you satisfy your voracious appetites for believing you are always right in a sounding room of liberal ideology. Enjoy the thread to yourselves for a while 😉

Let’s not misrepresent Fo when he’s not here to defend himself. He was a self-proclaimed Bernie supporter, and he said repeatedly that he was only linking to Conservative/Russian/neo-Nazi agitprop on a lark, not because he really believed it. And why should we doubt him? As such, his self-professed politics will be easily replaced by our many other actual Bernie supporters. You’ll be the lonely Conservative a little longer.

Post
#1077228
Topic
Religion
Time

darth_ender said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/way-more-americans-may-be-atheists-than-we-thought/

That’s interesting. In spite of the Protestant idea that everyone discovers their own religion, it usually passes down through families, and so religion usually has an ethnicity component. Denying religion can mean, in part, denying your ancestry.

I know lots of people who don’t believe in God. But, if asked, what religion are they? Catholic. Jewish. Southern Baptist. One’s even a minister. Because, to them, religion is more than just a belief in God. It’s an identity, it’s a community. And it’s a set of values and beliefs that are perhaps surprisingly unrelated to the existence of any deity. They see no reason to abandon all that just because they don’t believe in God. And, if they did, which community would they be trading their friends and family for? Dawkins? Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

I can see why the phrasing and format of the questionnaire could lead to wildly different conclusions.

I am curious what the atheist perception is regarding bigoted treatment. I mean, sure, there may be sociological structural difficulties, but actual, in-person bigotry…I just don’t see it being like racism, particularly among African-Americans, where racism has not only been institutionalized, but also was blatant and in your face.

I truly appreciate your disdain for Dawkins, because to me he represents the exact opposite problem: anti-religious bigotry and snobbery. I can only imagine atheism growing in our nation and the world, and when it supersedes adherents in numbers, I believe that the bigotry from that side will become a bigger problem. It’s simply the fact that atheism is a minority at present that the Richard Dawkinses and Bill Nyes of the world are allowed to act as they do without repercussion. I appreciate that there are many respectful atheists/agnostics, such as yourself, who do not see a need to be holier (what’s the atheist eqivalent–skepticaler?)-than-thou while maintaining their stance.

While there is an appeal of religion to the under-educated and an appeal of atheism to the educated, there are really many very intelligent people who still believe in God (and many uneducated atheists as well).

Well, I’d like to preface this with a “whenever I’m asked to speak on behalf of my entire ethnic/religious/racial group, I half want to do a respectable job and half want to hide under a table until everyone goes away.” I can’t speak on behalf of all atheists. Maybe moreso than any other religious group, we all followed very different paths to get to this point in our lives. But with that in mind, I’ll try to give you the best answer I can.

Anti-atheist bigotry isn’t something I’ve got a lot of personal experience with. There’s something called the “heterosexual assumption”. If you see a man walking down the street, you assume he’s heterosexual unless you see some evidence to the contrary. Statistically speaking, it’s a good assumption, even if there’s no reason to make the assumption in the first place. Same thing with being atheist in the US. The Christian majority does not have any visible defining characteristic–nor do atheists–so if I’m walking down the street people assume I’m part of that majority. Basically, I “pass” for Christian. All the damn time, without even trying.

It’s easier in a big town, and I’ve always lived in small cities or larger. In a super-small town, everyone goes to church on Sunday and you weren’t there! So this super invisibility trick doesn’t work for all atheists, everywhere. It’s also gotten better over time. When I was growing up, one of the neighborhood families stopped by our door every Sunday to ask if the kids would like to join them for Sunday School. My parents (bless them!) opened the door wide, stepped aside so everyone could see everyone else’s faces, and asked us “Hey kids, would you guys like to go to Sunday School today?” We’d look at each other and answer an incredulous and emphatic “No” and they’d leave us alone for another week. I bemoan the lack of neighbors who know each other just as much as everyone else, but I can’t see this scenario being nearly as common today.

Now, assuming you get found out, things get trickier. Sometimes, as with the neighbors in the previous story, you become a project. You are a wayward soul that they can straighten out. Happens to any other minority religious group too. Or it’s assumed that you became atheist with the specific purpose of offending Christians. One minister we met found out I was atheist and tried to start the so-clever-I’ve-heard-it-a-million-times argument by saying “I don’t believe atheists exist”. I think he was actually disappointed I had more important things to talk about, and left the bait on the hook.

Then there’s your family/community. I was “born atheist”, with an atheist dad and an agnostic mom. But for people who decide at a later age? Watch out, it can get ugly. Like I mentioned earlier, proclaiming atheism can seem like rejection of family/community/ethnicity and that occasionally goes very badly. And that’s why a lot of people stay “in the closet” so to speak. They go to church every Sunday, honestly wish they could believe, but simply don’t.

So by virtue of being born atheist and staying out of small towns, I’ve really only personally dealt with pretty small-potatoes bigotry. As I see it, the bigotry that’s out there is mostly in terms of impersonal structural things that favor the religious, from school voucher programs to the Hobby Lobby case and so on. But I’ve heard pretty terrible things about being atheist in the military these days, for example, so my experience really might not match up with someone else’s.

As for Dawkins, etc. The guy is an ass. Can I say that in a thread that’s supposed to be civil? A-S-S ass. I am hoping (without evidence) that Dawkins and his ilk are a case of “the zeal of a convert”. There are probably more converts among atheists than any other religious group. The coming-out process may have been particularly nasty and left a lot of spite and anger. Maybe a few generations down the line people will be more chill. But this is religion we’re talking about, so probably not.

Post
#1077186
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

What do you think of this? (I heard about it on my church’s facebook page.)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/16/school-offering-to-pray-for-colleague-is-unacceptable.html

Have to say, provided the reporting is correct, I agree with Fo. Fox also thinks there’s a War on Christmas, though, so I think verifying with a reputable news source is prudent.

That said, people really don’t understand the whole religion/prayer in schools thing. Prayer is legal, prayer is fine. It’s creating the appearance of school endorsement of that prayer/religion that’s the problem. I was assigned to read (parts of) the Bible in public high school (looong time ago admittedly). It wasn’t a big deal. Why? It was English class–as literature. All discussion was in that frame. Nobody cared, including Mr. Atheist here. And it was good to have read it.

Post
#1077139
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

In other news about people who were at one time relevant in American politics, the War of 1812 was caused by a sex scandal involving Thomas Jefferson and Dolley Madison.

We should all post Wikileaks emails about that.

Actually there are thousands of angles to that particular story. Anytime we feel like talking about the politics of yesteryear, it would be easy to share more.

Post
#1077106
Topic
Religion
Time

TV’s Frink said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/way-more-americans-may-be-atheists-than-we-thought/

That’s interesting. In spite of the Protestant idea that everyone discovers their own religion, it usually passes down through families, and so religion usually has an ethnicity component. Denying religion can mean, in part, denying your ancestry.

I know lots of people who don’t believe in God. But, if asked, what religion are they? Catholic. Jewish. Southern Baptist. One’s even a minister. Because, to them, religion is more than just a belief in God. It’s an identity, it’s a community. And it’s a set of values and beliefs that are perhaps surprisingly unrelated to the existence of any deity. They see no reason to abandon all that just because they don’t believe in God. And, if they did, which community would they be trading their friends and family for? Dawkins? Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

I can see why the phrasing and format of the questionnaire could lead to wildly different conclusions.

Post
#1077095
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Here’s a headline I’m sure most of you will love, even I giggled a bit.

“FBI Uncovers Evidence That 62 Million Trump Voters are All Russian Agents!” I guess this means you guys woke up in Russia the day after the election.

😃

Oops! Since you didn’t provide any attribution, I Googled it, and here’s the very first thing that came up.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/17/blog-posting/fake-story-about-trump-voters-being-russian-agents/

A satirical story that said every American who voted for Donald Trump works for the Russian government appeared to have started as a parody on a neo-Nazi website.

“FBI uncovers evidence that 62 million Trump voters are all Russian agents!” read the headline on a May 15, 2017, post on USPoliticsInfo.com. The post was flagged by Facebook users as possibly being fake, as part of the social media site’s efforts to crack down on fake news.

The story is full of absurd details that make it obvious it’s a joke. It said that anonymous FBI sources had revealed the 62 million voters were employed by Russian intelligence (Trump garnered more than 62.9 million votes in the presidential election, almost 2.9 million less than Hillary Clinton).

The story also said Wikileaks was run by Vladimir Putin and conservative media personality Alex Jones’ real name was Alexi Jonesov. An unnamed FBI agent further said in the article that “it is highly possible that the Russians used a space-beam from a satellite to control their brains from a facility in St. Petersburg, and moved their bodies like puppets to the polls to check the Trump box” during the election.

The same story or portions of it also appeared on several other websites.

Most of the time, these fake news sites share the story without any attribution at all. But after some digging, we found that the original fake post came from the white supremacist website DailyStormer.com.

I’m not laughing yet.

When asked for comment about why neo-Nazis are promoting the idea that the Trump-Russia connection is “fake news”, a DailyStormer member said “I know nothing! Nothing!”. A second member added “Hogaaan!”

Post
#1076895
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

DOJ has appointed a Special Counsel in the Russia probe.

Wow, nice pick. It will be tough to criticize him as a torch-wielding liberal. Not that it won’t happen anyway. DOJ Special Counsel is still a little hamstrung, but it’s the best we can hope for in this political climate.

I think so. He still answers to the AG, but it could be worse.

To elaborate for the benefit of the thread: we’re pretty much back to Nixon rules, as all the relevant post-Watergate reforms have expired. Nixon famously fired a series of people (the Saturday Night Massacre) who refused to fire the Special Counsel investigating him, until he found his hatchet man in Robert Bork, who complied. Theoretically, Trump could do the exact same thing. And he can still stonewall and resource-starve the Special Counsel and all sorts of other things too.

But, and this is important, Mueller will have some degree of autonomy and authority, if not outright independence. That puts him head and shoulders above the hand-waving-nothing-to-see-here exercises going on in the House and Senate.

Nixon’s (effective) firing of the Special Counsel led pretty much directly to his resignation. But that required a Congress that was willing to act when evidence was clearly laid out for everyone to see. That’s really the weak link this time around, IMO.

Post
#1076844
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

I’ve seen a few Republicans trying to claim that Trump made his Flynn comments to Comey as a joke or exaggeration or friendly banter. But if that’s the case…why did he tell Pence and Sessions to leave the room first?

It’s a variation on the “he’s too much of an idiot to have really known the full import of what he was doing” defense. And it’s proven shockingly effective in the past. I expect it to be used a lot more as things come out.

It basically boils down to intent. Firing Comey was obstruction… depending on intent. And so on. The argument is that idiots have no intent in anything they do, so if they seem to commit a crime where intent is relevant, then they’re simply not guilty by reason of being an idiot.

Post
#1076790
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

NeverarGreat said:

CatBus said:

I really disagree with that analysis. During Watergate, 2/3 of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee voted against all impeachment charges. And that’s after there was an actual audio recording of the President committing the crimes he was charged with. Direct evidence like that is very rare, even in normal criminal cases–usually convictions hinge upon a pile-up of circumstantial evidence that can’t be explained away by any other plausible scenario (i.e. “beyond reasonable doubt”). That’s much more likely to be the case here.

So if the case against Trump never gets as bulletproof as the case against Nixon, I’d say well over 2/3 of the Republican members of the relevant committees will avoid taking any action at all. Which is more than enough to ensure nothing happens. And Republicans won’t see any blowback regardless of how big the scandal becomes. As long as Trump’s approval stays above ~32%, they keep the Senate–with no real risk of losing it until 2022. The House is theirs until 2022 even if voters overwhelmingly prefer Democrats–and it’ll likely remain theirs after 2022 if they keep control of the redistricting process. What other changes may happen to our election system before 2022 is also worth considering.

If the scandals keep going at their current rate (major scandal every 12 hours or so, no actual video footage of Trump eating the puppy, just twelve witnesses), I think we’re looking at a second Trump term. That’s not doomed.

I think there are some additional factors to take into consideration here. One of them is that Trump has already made quite a few enemies in Congress, and he’s proving to be an embarrassment in terms of policy. Nixon was at least a savvy politician. There is also the matter of the crime. The Russia collusion has the potential to be much bigger than Watergate, if any hard evidence surfaces. Of course, there has been an erosion of values in Congress leading them to look the other way even when faced with wrongdoing, so perhaps these factors cancel out. But I don’t think that he is in a better position than Nixon at this point in his presidency.

Sure, there’s never a 100% perfect analog. That’s the perennial problem with using historical precedents to predict current events. But I think that it’s pretty clear (to me, at least) that if Republicans ran both houses of Congress, Nixon would never have been forced to resign, in spite of direct evidence of criminal wrongdoing. That doesn’t bode well.

Post
#1076787
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I really disagree with that analysis. During Watergate, 2/3 of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee voted against all impeachment charges. And that’s after there was an actual audio recording of the President committing the crimes he was charged with. Direct evidence like that is very rare, even in normal criminal cases–usually convictions hinge upon a pile-up of circumstantial evidence that can’t be explained away by any other plausible scenario (i.e. “beyond reasonable doubt”). That’s much more likely to be the case here.

So if the case against Trump never gets as bulletproof as the case against Nixon, I’d say well over 2/3 of the Republican members of the relevant committees will avoid taking any action at all. Which is more than enough to ensure nothing happens. And Republicans won’t see any blowback regardless of how big the scandal becomes. As long as Trump’s approval stays above ~32%, they keep the Senate–with no real risk of losing it until 2022. The House is theirs until 2022 even if voters overwhelmingly prefer Democrats–and it’ll likely remain theirs after 2022 if they keep control of the redistricting process. What other changes may happen to our election system before 2022 is also worth considering.

If the scandals keep going at their current rate (major scandal every 12 hours or so, no actual video footage of Trump eating the puppy, just twelve witnesses), I think we’re looking at a second Trump term. That’s not doomed.

Post
#1076588
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jeebus said:

Possessed said:

One could argue that legalizing gay marriage and marijuana are conservative standpoints as that means less government limitations on your personal life.

You would think.

It’s a libertarian standpoint. Liberals can love it because civil rights and conservatives can love it because government bad.

And technically the libertarian POV would be that the government doesn’t recognize any marriages at all, which I can sympathize with but it leads to a huge rat’s nest of legal issues, so government recognition of family units in some capacity seems warranted to keep that side of things simpler. But I don’t see any reason why that can’t be extended to unmarried multi-generational family units, etc.