Matthew Wright of "The Wright Stuff" made joke about a boy's murder that wouldn't be out of place on Sickipedia. The Daily Mail reports that he has been "forced to apologise".
It's a phrase I see a lot in the media. I wonder if they use it knowing how ridiculous it sounds, verging on the oxymoronic. You cannot force someone to apologise. If they have to be forced, then they don't mean it.
Perhaps the phrase is meant to convey the subject was blissfully unaware of the hurt they were causing, and an outcry made them see things differently (in which case, it hardly seems forced - more an awakening), or (more likely) this is the media pointing out this person has realised that, unless they go through the motions, they face ruin in whatever fragile bubble of fame, fortune and/or power they find themselves in.
We say to very young children, "Say you're sorry," in what is perhaps an understandable attempt to teach those still stuck at the selfish level of development about the ways of the larger society. But I've also seen pupils in secondary school "forced to apologise": they are sent to the teacher they have allegedly offended to issue a verbal or written apology. It's never worth it.
Melanie Phillips has written about, "a teenage burglar who, asked to write a letter of apology to his victims, wrote instead that he wasn't bothered or sorry at all, and that the burglary was all their fault for leaving their window open. Such incidents suggest that we are dealing with something beyond merely ruthless acquisitiveness and contempt for the law. They suggest a total absence of empathy for another person, which is the basic requirement of morality and, in turn, of a civilised society. They illustrate a brutalisation of humanity."
While I agree with her larger comment, at the very least the burglar was being honest. If you have to ask someone to write a letter of apology, the result will be pointless, regardless of its content. The victims didn't need an apology anyway - they needed financial reparations. "You can stuff your sorries in a sack, mister."
Wednesday 7 December 2011
Tuesday 20 September 2011
The Infallible Argument from Comedy
I used to be a fan of Eddie Izzard, when he was telling jokes about laundry, cats drilling, Greek mythology. Then I finally got to see him live and, instead of comedy, he started by telling us not to vote for the BNP, then told us God didn't exist. He ended his show telling us we should all work for the same wages (minimum wage, I think he was getting at). I wondered if such an adoption would make tickets to his show cheaper.
The non-existence of God was pretty much his theme for the evening, with such evidence offered as the fact God didn't flick off Hitler's head before he did so many terrible things and the fact God didn't show up to congratulate the human race when they reached the Moon.
Instead, Izzard told us he "believes in us!", in human beings, a state often recognised in theology as what happens when people reject the idea of gods - rather than stopping worshipping, they start worshipping themselves, each other or anything else they can find. Believing in the greatness of humans (except members of the BNP, obviously) would, you would think, make Izzard be grateful God didn't flick off Hitler's head - it gave an opportunity to show how great humans can be in the face of evil. As for the Moon, why wouldn't the supposed Creator of the Universe be impressed that, despite all the atrocities humans committed in the 20th Century, they managed to travel a quarter of a million miles (about 0.00000000000000003% of the width of the universe) and back?
I don't know how long celebrities have been using their celebrity status to sound off their views in public, usually demonstrating they have become celebrities by being great at exactly one thing. It's probably always been that way.
Of course, there's always Stephen Fry, who is hailed as a celebrity genius. I've heard the guy really is quite smart, but I can't help feeling most people accept his genius because he hosts QI. (Fewer would reach the same conclusion about Richard Whiteley, late host of Countdown, but there you go.)
Now, I'm not really saying celebrities lack the skills to shine in other areas - there are plenty of examples of comedians successfully moving to acting (and plenty of examples of musicians moving unsuccessfully to acting). There are many cases where someone has become famous for something that wasn't necessarily their passion, but gave them the chance to pursue their passion later (though I can't think of an example offhand!).
So it's entirely possible a show-business celebrity can have deep insight into politics, religion, history, etc. But I think many people listen to and take on board celebrity views only because they like their comedy, their songs, their films, etc. It's a lazy way to form an opinion.
Speaking of lazy, I occasionally stumble across one of Tim Minchin's comedy shows being televised. Talk about preaching to the converted. Last night I heard him do his own take on a refrain Ben Elton and Billy Connolly have done in the past. The bit starts off with something like, "Some people don't like my swearing," and ends with the comedian swearing. Tim Minchin's take was to segue from swearing to religion, with the punchline that he was now going to do a song about "anal sex and God", to which he received rapturous applause, before and after said song. (To my ear, the song used the same technique Russell Brand uses: multi-syllabic words disguising themselves as intellectual content.)
Comedians these days are in a particular position of power in espousing their viewpoints - firstly, their occupation literally is standing up, spouting their thoughts unchallenged. Secondly, they usually have a faithful congregation to preach to. Thirdly, and most powerful of all, if anyone does challenge them, the obvious response is, "It's comedy, get over it."
So I really shouldn't have bothered.
The non-existence of God was pretty much his theme for the evening, with such evidence offered as the fact God didn't flick off Hitler's head before he did so many terrible things and the fact God didn't show up to congratulate the human race when they reached the Moon.
Instead, Izzard told us he "believes in us!", in human beings, a state often recognised in theology as what happens when people reject the idea of gods - rather than stopping worshipping, they start worshipping themselves, each other or anything else they can find. Believing in the greatness of humans (except members of the BNP, obviously) would, you would think, make Izzard be grateful God didn't flick off Hitler's head - it gave an opportunity to show how great humans can be in the face of evil. As for the Moon, why wouldn't the supposed Creator of the Universe be impressed that, despite all the atrocities humans committed in the 20th Century, they managed to travel a quarter of a million miles (about 0.00000000000000003% of the width of the universe) and back?
I don't know how long celebrities have been using their celebrity status to sound off their views in public, usually demonstrating they have become celebrities by being great at exactly one thing. It's probably always been that way.
"Rock stars: is there anything they don't know?" - Homer Simpson
Of course, there's always Stephen Fry, who is hailed as a celebrity genius. I've heard the guy really is quite smart, but I can't help feeling most people accept his genius because he hosts QI. (Fewer would reach the same conclusion about Richard Whiteley, late host of Countdown, but there you go.)
Now, I'm not really saying celebrities lack the skills to shine in other areas - there are plenty of examples of comedians successfully moving to acting (and plenty of examples of musicians moving unsuccessfully to acting). There are many cases where someone has become famous for something that wasn't necessarily their passion, but gave them the chance to pursue their passion later (though I can't think of an example offhand!).
So it's entirely possible a show-business celebrity can have deep insight into politics, religion, history, etc. But I think many people listen to and take on board celebrity views only because they like their comedy, their songs, their films, etc. It's a lazy way to form an opinion.
Speaking of lazy, I occasionally stumble across one of Tim Minchin's comedy shows being televised. Talk about preaching to the converted. Last night I heard him do his own take on a refrain Ben Elton and Billy Connolly have done in the past. The bit starts off with something like, "Some people don't like my swearing," and ends with the comedian swearing. Tim Minchin's take was to segue from swearing to religion, with the punchline that he was now going to do a song about "anal sex and God", to which he received rapturous applause, before and after said song. (To my ear, the song used the same technique Russell Brand uses: multi-syllabic words disguising themselves as intellectual content.)
Comedians these days are in a particular position of power in espousing their viewpoints - firstly, their occupation literally is standing up, spouting their thoughts unchallenged. Secondly, they usually have a faithful congregation to preach to. Thirdly, and most powerful of all, if anyone does challenge them, the obvious response is, "It's comedy, get over it."
So I really shouldn't have bothered.
Tuesday 6 September 2011
The Newest Religion
Science probably isn't the newest religion, but at times it seems like it. I don't believe (like some claim) that all followers of religions are intellectually deficient, blindly following something just because someone told them to without question, but I'm fairly confident some do.
But when I see followers of "scientism" exhibiting such traits, I have to suspect it's an aspect of human nature, rather than an aspect of religions, that is the root cause.
Exhibit A - Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram
There's something quaint, almost absent-minded professorish, while at the same time exciting, about this investigation into whether the universe might be a hologram. But it's the lead comment I found more intriguing:
It's refreshingly honest to call someone's adherence to science a "religion". When I first read this, I guess I took it a bit too literally: was this person really saying their "Universe" was slightly different from the previous day, because of what scientists had found out? Let's hope not.
The universe, in some ways, is different every day for all of us, regardless what we believe, while in other ways it stays the same. For this commenter, having a "priest" (or, in their terms, a "science god") tell them what their latest experiments lead them to conclude is enough to give them the jollies and feel their universe is different.
Such adoration of knowledge, while commendable to a degree, is disappointing when seen as the pinnacle of man's pursuits. When one tackles a maths textbook at school, maybe it can be said the universe seems a little different each day as one gains understanding. But it doesn't change the fact the answers are already set, in the questions themselves as well as in the back of the book.
Not sure who the dead guy is, though. Could he be talking about Mohammed? That's just mean.
Exhibit B: Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time
Again, as interesting as the article is, it's a comment that caught my attention:
Steffen Says: "On #9: Also our grandkids won’t live forever. Perhaps they will enjoy a prolonged lifespan and much higher quality of life in old age, but they will not live forever.
But when I see followers of "scientism" exhibiting such traits, I have to suspect it's an aspect of human nature, rather than an aspect of religions, that is the root cause.
Exhibit A - Physicists: Universe Almost Certainly Not a Hologram
There's something quaint, almost absent-minded professorish, while at the same time exciting, about this investigation into whether the universe might be a hologram. But it's the lead comment I found more intriguing:
It's refreshingly honest to call someone's adherence to science a "religion". When I first read this, I guess I took it a bit too literally: was this person really saying their "Universe" was slightly different from the previous day, because of what scientists had found out? Let's hope not.
The universe, in some ways, is different every day for all of us, regardless what we believe, while in other ways it stays the same. For this commenter, having a "priest" (or, in their terms, a "science god") tell them what their latest experiments lead them to conclude is enough to give them the jollies and feel their universe is different.
Such adoration of knowledge, while commendable to a degree, is disappointing when seen as the pinnacle of man's pursuits. When one tackles a maths textbook at school, maybe it can be said the universe seems a little different each day as one gains understanding. But it doesn't change the fact the answers are already set, in the questions themselves as well as in the back of the book.
Not sure who the dead guy is, though. Could he be talking about Mohammed? That's just mean.
Exhibit B: Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time
Again, as interesting as the article is, it's a comment that caught my attention:
Steffen Says: "On #9: Also our grandkids won’t live forever. Perhaps they will enjoy a prolonged lifespan and much higher quality of life in old age, but they will not live forever.
"There is a very good reason evolution invented death. The cycle of life and death ensures that a species adapts much better to changing circumstances. Imagine a society where everybody is immortal. It quite inevitably culminates in an ultra-conservative nightmare, where “everything is like it was forever”. Imagine a society where the industry tycoons of the 19th century still own the majority of money and influence.
"[...] I am glad that death exists, and when my time arrives, I will go, to make place for the young generation. They deserve their chance."
I was surprised and glad to read the denunciation that "our grandkids won't live forever," since it's often a staple of scientism that, eventually, we will defeat death through science. I detect a schism, at least two sects within this religion, where one side pursues immortality (often while chiding religious believers for believing such nonsense themselves) and the other acknowledges limits to the reach of science (almost a heresy, surely - the normal interpretation to such limits is that, anything outside the realms of science does not actually exist anyway).
But it was the sentence I've highlighted that stopped me in my tracks for sheer stupidity. Evolution, a mindless concept that rules out any ideas of purpose in anything, somehow has the capacity for invention, and inventing no less a milestone than death itself.
We know from our schooling that evolution takes millions of years (except for those times when it doesn't - another schism, I suspect) to accomplish something (not that it accomplishes - since there's no goal, there's no measure of accomplishment), yet here it cobbled together "death" to ensure our survival.
When did it do this? One hopes from the beginning (whatever that means), otherwise there are beings in existence that have never died, which surely gives an in for more religious ideas.
Monday 1 August 2011
The Art of Projection
The argument by those explaining why the likes of Robert Spencer et al are responsible for the murders in Norway runs as follow:
The first, alas, is never supported with any evidence; they take the "hate" part for granted. Is it hate because they don't agree with what is written? Is what's written erroneous? It's irrelevant, as neither of those constitute hatred.
And yet, without evidence of hatred, the argument falls apart. It won't stop its repetition of course. And these champions of what is good and just continue their attack.
I particularly enjoyed the irony of the commenter who told Pamela Geller she "didn't deserve the life you have." (link lost) And the ever upright BBC got comments from a "Norwegian philosopher" (Lars Gule, a Professor, no less), criticising Robert Spencer for writing about Islam, at no point telling its eager and faithful audience that Gule had been convicted of carrying explosives intended for a terrorist act.
Lars Gule has said that, "while he once believed that it was possible to create a societal revolt without violence, he now believed that the use of weapons is needed in order to cure injustices because no one gives up his rights without a fight." (source) That appears to be the same conclusion the Norway murderer came to.
- Their articles are filled with hate.
- The murderer read their articles.
- Therefore the murders were part-caused by the writers.
The first, alas, is never supported with any evidence; they take the "hate" part for granted. Is it hate because they don't agree with what is written? Is what's written erroneous? It's irrelevant, as neither of those constitute hatred.
And yet, without evidence of hatred, the argument falls apart. It won't stop its repetition of course. And these champions of what is good and just continue their attack.
I particularly enjoyed the irony of the commenter who told Pamela Geller she "didn't deserve the life you have." (link lost) And the ever upright BBC got comments from a "Norwegian philosopher" (Lars Gule, a Professor, no less), criticising Robert Spencer for writing about Islam, at no point telling its eager and faithful audience that Gule had been convicted of carrying explosives intended for a terrorist act.
Lars Gule has said that, "while he once believed that it was possible to create a societal revolt without violence, he now believed that the use of weapons is needed in order to cure injustices because no one gives up his rights without a fight." (source) That appears to be the same conclusion the Norway murderer came to.
Sunday 24 July 2011
Start with a Summary
If Islamic terrorists attack the West, it is because of West.
If non-Islamic terrorists attack the West, it is because of the West.
If Islamic terrorists attack the West, the media will avoid reference to their appearances or beliefs.
If non-Islamic terrorists attack the West, the media will clearly state their hair and eye colour, political and religious beliefs.
If Islamic terrorists attack the West, their actions are in spite of Islam, which is a religion of peace.
If non-Islamic terrorists attack the West, their actions confirm that all religions, particularly Christianity, are vile and violent.
If Islamic terrorists attack the West, you cannot criticise their religion because of a few extremists.
If non-Islamic terrorists attack the West, it was only a matter of time; that's what followers of religion do.
If Islamic terrorists attack the West, it was just a small group of outsiders.
If a lone gunman attacks children, it shows the dangers of right-wing groups and must be investigated.
That is our starting point. Just to be clear.
If non-Islamic terrorists attack the West, it is because of the West.
If Islamic terrorists attack the West, the media will avoid reference to their appearances or beliefs.
If non-Islamic terrorists attack the West, the media will clearly state their hair and eye colour, political and religious beliefs.
If Islamic terrorists attack the West, their actions are in spite of Islam, which is a religion of peace.
If non-Islamic terrorists attack the West, their actions confirm that all religions, particularly Christianity, are vile and violent.
If Islamic terrorists attack the West, you cannot criticise their religion because of a few extremists.
If non-Islamic terrorists attack the West, it was only a matter of time; that's what followers of religion do.
If Islamic terrorists attack the West, it was just a small group of outsiders.
If a lone gunman attacks children, it shows the dangers of right-wing groups and must be investigated.
That is our starting point. Just to be clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"Beats having to think about the same dead guy everyday."