James Lazarus has posted further responses to Brian Flemming and myself at his blog. Here's my reply.
First, in my original post on the Blasphemy Challenge, I drew a distinction between the Blasphemy Challenge and the "shall we say, debateable" things that have been said on other occasions by Brian Sapient and co. Lazarus has recognized no such distinction, repeatedly bringing up such things that have not, as far as I've seen, been a part of the challenge. He gives the impression that he thinks the project is bad simply in virtue of the fact that the RRS is doing it. I certainly hope he doesn't bring a similar attitude to his interactions with me; from what I've seen of his site, we have plenty of interests in common and should be able to have more productive interactions than the current spat.
Second, I'm puzzled by Laz's insistence that what's okay on a t-shirt is not okay as something designed to end up on TV?
Is it because on TV people will take it as representing atheists as a whole? The assumption that one atheist can speak for all certainly out there, but its the kind of stupid assumption that shouldn't control our activism any more than Fox News should.
Is it fear that it could edge out other things that are worth spending time on? No one is proposing making things like the Blasphemy Challenge the only thing we do, and it's certainly not the only thing the RRS has done. If nothing else, they put together some respectable shows with Richard Carrier (and this is not to dis their other material, it's just the Carrier shows are the main thing I'm familiar with).
At risk of simply repeating what I've already said: yes, I'd love it if instead of reporting on the Blasphemy Challenge, every major TV network would give two hours of airtime to intelligent, articulate documentary work by atheists, by "a bunch of Bertrand Russells," if you like. But the former was feasible, the latter is not. Hearing a guest on Fox News suggest, however briefly, that telling kids they'll go to hell if they don't believe is harmful--that's better than nothing. It's better than nothing even if the host manages to make the guest look like an "extremist whacko."
If we want to reach as many people as possible, the goal should not be to be highbrow or lowbrow per se, rather, the goal should be to avoid being unibrow. That way there's something for everyone.
So by all means Laz, go on doing all the things you do. It's all wonderful. But don't spend lots of time complaining about projects like the Blasphemy Challenge.
4 comments:
The assumption that one atheist can speak for all certainly out there, but its the kind of stupid assumption that shouldn't control our activism any more than Fox News should.
But isn't that what Laz was trying to do? He probably doesn't think so, but I simply disagreed with his views and the rhetoric was upped and upped until he acted like such a juvenile that I had to back out of the discussion. Then I politely offered an apology for the upped rhetoric, he never reciprocated (at least not yet). And to think, he's speaking out against juvenile behavior.....
I won't reply to Chris Hallquist's post, as I already said that I won't comment further on the RRS and TBC. The only response that I'll give to his post is to confirm that I do not extend my criticisms of the RRS to Chris - I do think that we have a lot of interests in common, and I think you're a pretty sharp guy.
However, I will respond to this trash that Loftus has started up. I posted an e-mail I received from an anonymous viewer of my blog, which essentially said all that needed to be said about Loftus's interaction with me (I posted this e-mail in a combox of one of my posts).
My two initial responses to Loftus were calm, and I merely addressed his points. In fact, even when he went so far as to psychoanalyze me with an inferiority complex, I merely thanked him for the psychoanalysis and moved on to the actual issues that we were supposed to be discussing.
However, Loftus insisted on acting like a spoiled child. His critiques continued to throw out insults needlessly, so I eventually responded back with a bunch of my own. It's a wonder that Loftus seems puzzled by why this has happened.
If anyone needs to take a second look at themselves here, it's Loftus. Don't act shocked that I came back with harsh words after you acted like you did. You felt the need to apologize. Obviously then you think you were offensive - and you were, far before I started handing it back to you. I had a favourable opinion of you when we first came into contact, but you've certainly given me more than ample reasons to change my view around.
And that's about it.
- Jim
[This post was submitted twice, the second time to fix typos.]
Well then Laz, people can decide for themselves, and they will, but I still maintain you are ignorant about the nature of the media and of the value of radicalism. Is that offensive to speak my mind? Does that cause you to flame me? Well then so be it. And it matters not to me what ignorant people think of my more informed opinions.
Post a Comment