What if God is horrifying?

Oh dear. UKIP proponent Pat Condell being posted on TLO. Say it aint so.

I don't mind Mark Samuels' frequent Christian references personally, and I disagree with essentially everything he ever says on morality, philosophy or politics. The line between somebody who doesn't have the answers and somebody who has mistaken answers is thinner than people tend to realise. All of us are near-equally clueless. It only bothers me when supercilious people try and use their flavour of cluelessness to oppress other people, as the Catholic church has been doing for a very long time.

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

[qcrisp]

But Charles Manson, on the other hand, is a great role model.

Charles Manson isn't my role model at all, though if he was he's got significantly less to answer for than the Catholic church, let alone God's unfathomable-to-our-monkey-brains list of victims he's made suffer.

Political correctness can be misapplied sometimes, but it would need to really put its skates on to cause as much damage to the planet as Christianity has, and continues to. The myth of Christianity being under threat or victimised, rather than still the dominant ideology behind western corporate culture, is a fairly amusing one.

[Ucasuni]

I'm a little disappointed that my first post on TLO will be about politics, but here goes:

The unguarded abrasiveness of FPs post makes it an easy target, particularly for strawman rebuttals.

Clearly, FP finds much of mark_s's political/religious commentary offensive. "Taking offense" is not synonymous with "intolerance", or else everyone is inteolerant and it's a concept that has no real value in conversion. Indeed, one might argue that FP has no choice but to tolerate it, as he has no power over the posting rights of any of TLO membership. We're free to guess how he might exercise such power were it ever granted to him. Judging from the content of his post, I would imagine that he'd be reasonably tolerant: his entire post is dedicated to the attacking offensive speech on its own terms (as he sees them), not banning it.

His use of the phrase "conversational intolerance", however, has clearly caused some confusion—although it shouldn't, as it's immediately defined in his post. All he is proposing is the right to be vocally antagonistic towards what he views as offensive commentary (specifically, the framework he outlines is: "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"). This is not fascism (a term that lost virtually all meaning almost as soon as it was invented). It may not be especially "nice" (a quality of which—by some definitions—mark_s disapproves, anyway), but that's hardly the same thing.

Then there's the issued of "free speech", a term which has also been sadly corrupted to the point of meaninglessness. Free speech is a political concept that describes the relationship between officials and members of society. Free speech as a constitutional right only exists as a protection against censorship of the people by the government. This does not translate legally or philosophically into a requirement for one equal member of society to entertain, or even tolerate, the speech of another equal member. Claims of infringement on free speech in the western world today are almost always dramatic—and semantically inaccurate—euphemisms for "disrespect of someone's views." Now, I concede that both how we define "respect" and whether mark_s's religous/politcal views (as indeed any individual's particular views) deserve it are matters for debate. Clearly, FP thinks they are beneath respect, while others are quite sympathetic to them. But let's not hide behind the non-shield of "free speech".

In fairness, I think that the derailment of this thread into mark_s love-/hate-athon can be be traced pretty easily to mark_s's own initial post which, while lengthy, isn't really relevant, as it does not not approach the topic on its own terms. Indeed, it is a rebuttal to Ehrenreich's various articles (and a kind of unpleasantly enthusiastic sneerfest against atheists), but not an answer to the hypothetical: what if God is horrifying? One might ask, considering mark_s's religious position, why he should be expected to entertain what he views as counterfactual, To which I could answer, in two completely different ways: 1) As he is talented writer of imaginative fiction, it would be fascinating to see how he conceptualizes an idea that seems contradictory to his personal belief system (although, he could have easily squared it by distinguishing between "horrifying" and "evil" or "un-good"). Or 2) He shouldn't be expected to, but he can hardly be thought of as acting in good faith (no pun intended) if he neglects to work within the framework of the topic, and chooses instead to filibuster on superiority of his worldview.

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by James Sucellus

Charles Manson isn't my role model at all, though if he was he's got significantly less to answer for than the Catholic church, let alone God's unfathomable-to-our-monkey-brains list of victims he's made suffer. Political correctness can be misapplied sometimes, but it would need to really put its skates on to cause as much damage to the planet as Christianity has, and continues to. The myth of Christianity being under threat or victimised, rather than still the dominant ideology behind western corporate culture, is a fairly amusing one.

If you can quote Charles Manson without him being your role model then you should be able to grasp the idea that one can post a clip of Pat Condell without actually being Pat Condell.

However, even this is conceding too much to your previous post, which, unfortunately, only validated what Condell was saying in the particular clip posted.

There's a reason why the ad hominem form of argumentation is generally considered inadmissible in philosophy, and that's because it prevents people from engaging with what is actually being said.

On the question of political correctness, well, see my second paragraph. I must also presume you haven't read the history of Soviet Russia, or, for that matter, of Cambodia under Pol Pot, or China under Chairman Mao.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Ucasuni

I'm a little disappointed that my first post on TLO will be about politics, but here goes: The unguarded abrasiveness of FPs post makes it an easy target, particularly for strawman rebuttals. Clearly, FP finds much of mark_s's political/religious commentary offensive. "Taking offense" is not synonymous with "intolerance", or else everyone is inteolerant and it's a concept that has no real value in conversion. Indeed, one might argue that FP has no choice but to tolerate it, as he has no power over the posting rights of any of TLO membership. We're free to guess how he might exercise such power were it ever granted to him. Judging from the content of his post, I would imagine that he'd be reasonably tolerant: his entire post is dedicated to the attacking offensive speech on its own terms (as he sees them), not banning it. His use of the phrase "conversational intolerance", however, has clearly caused some confusion—although it shouldn't, as it's immediately defined in his post. All he is proposing is the right to be vocally antagonistic towards what he views as offensive commentary (specifically, the framework he outlines is: "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"). This is not fascism (a term that lost virtually all meaning almost as soon as it was invented). It may not be especially "nice" (a quality of which—by some definitions—mark_s disapproves, anyway), but that's hardly the same thing. Then there's the issued of "free speech", a term which has also been sadly corrupted to the point of meaninglessness. Free speech is a political concept that describes the relationship between officials and members of society. Free speech as a constitutional right only exists as a protection against censorship of the people by the government. This does not translate legally or philosophically into a requirement for one equal member of society to entertain, or even tolerate, the speech of another equal member. Claims of infringement on free speech in the western world today are almost always dramatic—and semantically inaccurate—euphemisms for "disrespect of someone's views." Now, I concede that both how we define "respect" and whether mark_s's religous/politcal views (as indeed any individual's particular views) deserve it are matters for debate. Clearly, FP thinks they are beneath respect, while others are quite sympathetic to them. But let's not hide behind the non-shield of "free speech". In fairness, I think that the derailment of this thread into mark_s love-/hate-athon can be be traced pretty easily to mark_s's own initial post which, while lengthy, isn't really relevant, as it does not not approach the topic on its own terms. Indeed, it is a rebuttal to Ehrenreich's various articles (and a kind of unpleasantly enthusiastic sneerfest against atheists), but not an answer to the hypothetical: what if God is horrifying? One might ask, considering mark_s's religious position, why he should be expected to entertain what he views as counterfactual, To which I could answer, in two completely different ways: 1) As he is talented writer of imaginative fiction, it would be fascinating to see how he conceptualizes an idea that seems contradictory to his personal belief system (although, he could have easily squared it by distinguishing between "horrifying" and "evil" or "un-good"). Or 2) He shouldn't be expected to, but he can hardly be thought of as acting in good faith (no pun intended) if he neglects to work within the framework of the topic, and chooses instead to filibuster on superiority of his worldview.

Conversational intolerance is FP's own phrase. This is actually what he's advocating. (Though, of course, you don't believe this is what he's advocating. Perhaps he'll correct you, or perhaps he'll agree with you. Perhaps he'll remain silent. We shall see.) He can advocate it if he wishes, but, of course, we don't have to agree with it.

As for free speech, of course this is between the state and the citizen, but the confusion arises precisely when some people think others have no right to say something or other. People can be offended all they want, but I think it's worth pointing out when emotional blackmail of this kind is taking place, since free thought or speech has not been valued without reason, does not exist in a vacuum, and will only continue to exist, with the benefits that we derive from it, if we defend it without confusion.

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

People aren't allowed to be as horrible as they used to be without general (not legal) social condemnation, which I view as a generally positive thing, despite the occasional flawed misuse. The people in power in my country are the ones most at odds with political correctness, so comparisons to Stalinism seem fairly impossible to uphold.

[Druidic]

Conversational intolerance doesn't sound like debate to me. It sounds fascist, a word which has a very definite meaning. What FP suggests sounds like public attacks intended to humiliate. Public Shaming is used by all systems but the fascists and communists really perfected it.

Quote Originally Posted by Druidic

Conversational intolerance doesn't sound like debate to me. It sounds fascist, a word which has a very definite meaning.

I'd say fascist is one of the most nebulous words in the English language, with no fixed definition people agree on. Generally though, I'd associate it with right-wing authoritarianism, which isn't really in effect here at all.

Amusingly, I do view Christianity as a fascist ideology, but that's probably better not discussed.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by James Sucellus

People aren't allowed to be as horrible as they used to be without general (not legal) social condemnation, which I view as a generally positive thing, despite the occasional flawed misuse. The people in power in my country are the ones most at odds with political correctness, so comparisons to Stalinism seem fairly impossible to uphold.

For your conclusion to be true here, your supporting statement would have to be both coherent and substantiated. It's certainly not substantiated. I'm not sure it's coherent, either.