>> ^kymbos:

I have never seen this flick. And I'm a huge Mike Myers fan. It makes no sense.


That defies all logic, do you even have a penis??

I have never seen this flick. And I'm a huge Mike Myers fan. It makes no sense.

@SDGundamX (warning, long post, in 2 parts, w/tldr @end)

From the content of your reply I'm going to assume (or should I hope?) that you are playing the devil's advocate in your defense of religious belief/faith(addressed in 2nd comment below); correct me if I'm wrong. As for me, I readily admit that my defense of rudeness is presented in a spirit of controversy; I also prefer direct but insultless argumentation in these kinds of debates, but am not against the occasional use of painful - even insulting - truths.

On "Rudity"

Before answering on this subject, I think it is important to stress that the woman above is a comedian, something surely stated in her presentation at the show's beginning. I would defend her exclamation regardless, but the fact definitely makes it easier, since hyperbole, shock and insult are all tools of the comedian's/satirist's trade. You might say that she's not at a comedy show, to which I would answer that one need not be.

You ask for examples of rudeness/insult-laden arguments being productive. I would gesture very generally in the direction of those whose wavering minds were decided by the argumentation of the "New Atheists", some of whom are utterly disrespectful of faith and religious beliefs... 'insultingly so' I might add. Sure, they do not say outright "religious believers are idiots" (nor does Kate mind you), but say as much and worse about their beliefs. PZ Myers, one of the most foul-mouthed "New Atheists" on the web and irl (one example which even I found excessively harsh), has been encouraged by ex-believers to continue debating creationists (something he, like others, has renounced, because of the weight of the stupidity); because it works.

I don't think my personal anecdotal evidence counts for much, but since you asked (and since I'm rambling)... The process of my parents' deconversion from evangelical christianity, brought about by yours truly, contained copious amounts of insult, the quality and quantity of which would make the mild "idiot" comment above seem like a compliment in comparison. I'm not particularly proud of my teenage, anger-spurred vulgarity of that time, and were it to be redone I'd definitely tone it down, but I am proud of my relative success: one of my parents is now about as antitheist as I, and while I suspect the other of harbouring a remnant of faith in the supernatural, at least it is never brought up and no longer affects family life or decisions.

You might argue that my insulting descriptions of their dearly-held beliefs were not what convinced them, and you'd be partially right. There were plenty of actual arguments amongst the harsh words. But I was told later (by the parent I fully convinced) that my passionate (read "insulting") tirades against their beliefs is what got them to be questioned; it was the fact that a person they considered as not entirely unintelligent could voice such statements so bluntly that shook them from the comfort of their position of belief. I have also reacted with mocking contempt when facing friends and/or family tempted by other nonsense like conspiracy theories or homeopathy. After OBL's death, one of my close friends let slip that her soon-to-be husband was a 9/11 truther and that she found his stance convincing. I spoke my mind freely (as I do with friends), with words including "pathetic", "stupid" and "he's lost a lot of intellectual respect". Needless to say she was angered (especially since I'd never met the bloke yet), but it did not hinder her from accepting the follow-up argumentation. Had I been more diplomatic, she might have let my argumentation pass by ignored, in favour of an emotionally charged stance.

Yes, I realise the examples above do not concern public debate, but private discussion with people who already had a favourable opinion of me. I don't usually spend time in the company of people who dislike me (or vice-versa), nor do I make a habit of being blunt with people I don't know (okay, maybe a bit on the webs). I have been known to tell evangelical work colleagues that their belief that humankind is twice the offspring of incest is both ridiculous and disgusting, and yet they still speak to me (it helps that here in Europe such beliefs are held by a fringe). Dunno if it had any effect on their beliefs though (and really don't care).



tl;dr: it's a comedian's role to speak truths in uncomfortable ways; persuasion can still be efficient when insult is involved; I'm a contrary bitch with very few friends (but quality ones )
>> ^SDGundamX:
[...] since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was calling you an accomodationist. The idea that we shouldn't call spades spades, nor imply that having faith is idiocy (what Kate does) is, however, a typical argument of the "don't be a dick" stance, which I and many others disagree with. Being direct - even insultingly so - about the absurdity of certain beliefs can and does cause certain viewers to snap out of the comfort of their beliefs and question them. It has the added benefit of getting attention, as @bareboards2 mentioned above. As for the "why debate?" question, I think you know the answer to that.

Of course, just calling people idiots is no way to argue a point, and is in fact counterproductive. That is not, however, what Kate does. The "I don't believe shit by faith because I'm not an idiot" phrase comes as a shocker conclusion to the argument for why faith is idiotic, i.e. it is believing something (and relies on the foisting of that belief upon others) without a shred of evidence.

If she would have said "I personally don't believe in Santa because I'm not a three year old" no one would be up in arms. The truly scandalous thing is that so many grown adults still believe something equally stupid and much more dangerous. A 3-yr-old who believes in Santa is simply deluded. An adult who does is an idiot (or, to be nice, a deluded individual).

Being forthright and even "rude" is only one among many ways of communicating an idea. Just because it's confrontational does not make it an invalid one. I look forward to the day when treating faith as the idiocy that it is will be as un-scandalous as calling geo-centrists idiots is today.

edit: @FlowersInHisHair, you say she immediately turned the other debatees against anything else she might have said, and anyone in the audience who was on the fence would have chalked it up against her, too. Better would have been to say that faith wasn't good enough for her, or that she demands more than faith, or that she values evidence above faith. The fact that she called them idiots makes her look inarticulate, sarcastic and angry.

Firstly, while she does turn the debatees against her (as if they weren't already), that is not necessarily the case for the viewers. People will not necessarily immediately side with the ones implied as being idiots... they might think about it a bit first. Saying that faith "isn't good enough for her" allows for the interpretation that it's okay for other people... not exactly the point being made imo. Finally, just because someone implies that someone else is an idiot doesn't necessarily make the speaker of the insult appear inarticulate or angry... Randi calls charlatans all kinds of names, why is no one up in arms against that? Why should religious nuts/beliefs get special treatment?


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^hpqp:
I don't think there's a chance in hell that the people she's debating will ever be convinced to change their religious views. People that are watching, however, might be shocked out of their tradition-following torpor and realise just how idiotic faith is.
Then why debate at all? With probably a few exceptions, the only people who will be amused or impressed by this woman are already atheists. She could have made the same argument but stayed on topic (ie. attacking faith) and it would have carried far more weight.
The first article Myers links to (which he says he agrees with) in the article you linked above defines accommodationism as:

Refusing to make arguments against religion — not because you personally don’t enjoy them, but because you think it’s inherently disrespectful to criticize people’s religious beliefs, and/or because you think religion is in a special category of ideas that ought not to be criticized. And trying to convince other atheists that they shouldn’t do it, either.

This is not at all what I am promoting. You attack their argument and their ideas, viciously, but you don't attack them with childish name-calling and insults. Myers actually makes a nearly identical argument to mine in that article. He even makes reference to the "high-horse tactic" ("And then there’s the usual high-horse tactic, where whatever it is he is doing is superior.") which is quite similar to what I called machismo earlier.
So am I still an accommodationist? Do you feel I'm accommodating you by only attacking your argument? Would my argument be better if I also said you were a deluded moron?
(To be clear, I don't think you're a deluded moron. I'm just trying to make my point.)
Also, I'm not above mocking religious people from time to time, I'm just saying it's counter-productive in a debate or anywhere else that you might hope to sway opinion.

From www.washingtonsblog.com:

... Dick Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay.

In fact, 5 war games were scheduled for 9/11, including games that included the insertion of false radar blips onto air traffic contollers’ screens. Specifically, on the very morning of September 11th, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one “live fly” exercise using REAL planes.

Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony — see transcript here or http://www.spiegltech.com/media/McKinney2.rm">video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft”. In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html">official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that on 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft posing as hijacked airliners.

On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that “Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what’s known as an ‘inject,’ is purged from the screens”. This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers’ screens as part of the war game exercises.

Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were moved up to September 11th by persons unknown.

Now here’s where it gets interesting … Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y]

(this testimony is confirmed here and here).

So even if 9/11 wasn’t foreseeable before 9/11, it was foreseeable to Dick Cheney – who had been attacking democracy for nearly 40 years – as the plane was still 50 miles away from the Pentagon.

>> ^hpqp:

I don't think there's a chance in hell that the people she's debating will ever be convinced to change their religious views. People that are watching, however, might be shocked out of their tradition-following torpor and realise just how idiotic faith is.

Then why debate at all? With probably a few exceptions, the only people who will be amused or impressed by this woman are already atheists. She could have made the same argument but stayed on topic (ie. attacking faith) and it would have carried far more weight.

The first article Myers links to (which he says he agrees with) in the article you linked above defines accommodationism as:

Refusing to make arguments against religion — not because you personally don’t enjoy them, but because you think it’s inherently disrespectful to criticize people’s religious beliefs, and/or because you think religion is in a special category of ideas that ought not to be criticized. And trying to convince other atheists that they shouldn’t do it, either.

This is not at all what I am promoting. You attack their argument and their ideas, viciously, but you don't attack them with childish name-calling and insults. Myers actually makes a nearly identical argument to mine in that article. He even makes reference to the "high-horse tactic" ("And then there’s the usual high-horse tactic, where whatever it is he is doing is superior.") which is quite similar to what I called machismo earlier.

So am I still an accommodationist? Do you feel I'm accommodating you by only attacking your argument? Would my argument be better if I also said you were a deluded moron?

(To be clear, I don't think you're a deluded moron. I'm just trying to make my point.)

Also, I'm not above mocking religious people from time to time, I'm just saying it's counter-productive in a debate or anywhere else that you might hope to sway opinion.

@xxovercastxx

Ah, the old accomodationist argument (I'm of the "PZ Myers school" of antitheist critique; his most recent piece on the subject).

I don't think there's a chance in hell that the people she's debating will ever be convinced to change their religious views. People that are watching, however, might be shocked out of their tradition-following torpor and realise just how idiotic faith is. Also, there's nothing macho about speaking the truth, even when it's spoken so bluntly. And it feels good to hear someone unabashedly say out loud what most of us think anyways.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'austin, powers, mike, myers, dr, evil, shagadelic, michael, caine, shat, on, turtle' to 'austin, powers, mike, myers, michael, caine, shat, on, turtle, cockney rhyming slang' - edited by Fusionaut

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I started laughing uncontrollably at 2:48. Anybody have any more doubts as to whether or not this guy is really Russian?


His real name is Kyle Myers. However he gained "fame" by starting the russian accent a few years back.

>> ^ponceleon:
Do we have confirmation that this guy isn't Russian? I kinda like the accent...

As far as I know his real name is Kyle Myers, former FPS Kyle. Don't quote me on this though, haven't been able to get some "solid" information from ze google!

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
I love Mike Myers. 2 more to go til gold now! *promote

Thanks!

I love Mike Myers. 2 more to go til gold now! *promote

For those of us who call that god "non-existent" , PZ Myers has a few words: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/thats_not_my_nation_mr_preside.php

>> ^quantumushroom:

Howie Mandel was a comic. I guess no one remembered that.


>> ^Drax:

No Mike Myers? He looks like a clone of him.


They're oth Canadian. It's America's Got Talent, so he only did American comedians.

And Howie Mandel may not qualify as a comedian anyway because he's merely unfunny, unless you define "comedian" as anyone who self-identifies as a comedian.

No Mike Myers? He looks like a clone of him.