ATTN: All Strident Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

I suggested you look up the words "conformist" and "crap" and then get back to me.

I will admit, though, to conforming to reality a lot better than you do.

^ Coming from someone with AS........... hilarious ! !! !

Funny you can pick and choose when to bash dissidents about 'not conforming to reality,' when in a sense the whole premise behind an AS diagnosis is a justification for withdrawing from the NT world.

Umm.... no, that's stupid, Hanotaux.

The premise behind an AS diagnosis is that psychological research has identified a set of characteristics that are highly associated together in individuals, and that it is possible for individuals to better have an understanding of themselves and their relationship with the outside world to label this set of characteristics, as well as possible for those in the medical community to have a better understanding of this set of highly associated characteristics and the individuals who have those characteristics.

The notion that this identification necessarily contains a normative claim is somewhat questionable.

There's a difference between not picking up nonverbal cues or thinking about something so much that you lose track of your surroundings and pretty much pulling BS out of thin air. People with AS are known to do the former, but - I hope - not the later.

And please don't go around telling people that AS is associated with poor fact-checking abilities. I'd rather not have the condition more stigmatized then it already is.

Not really, the site generally encourages AS exceptionalism, rather than the notion that people with AS must try to conform to the reality of the NT world as much as possible.

So lashing out at someone for supposedly not 'conforming to reality,' with all that might mean in the general sense, seems kind of hypocritical.

I don't encourage AS exceptionalism. Other posters also show some more balance on the issue as well. AS is a condition, and one that has many negative characteristics, so saying that every discovery or whatever is the result of a person with AS is just deeply incorrect.

Secondly, the two issues are not equivalent, Hanotaux. The reality of the NT world is a social construct, and thus can be altered, and seeking to change a social construct rather than conforming to it is not intellectually problematic. In fact, all political beliefs tend to be based upon that desire. However, the notion of "conforming to reality" is often not a matter of behaviors so much truth-claims, and honestly, I would see Master_Pedant as really making the claim that his beliefs are closer to the truth than Katharsistwo's beliefs. (I can't see a more plausible interpretation at least)

I'd also like to address the "conformism" allegations. While I conform pretty nicely to reality - that is to say I tend to issue true assertions when it comes to factual matters - I do not conform uncritically to the mindset of any set of thinkers or activists. I was alone on the Canadian centre-left, international centre-left, and compared to US left-liberal commentators in asserting that the hope was empty.

When people in Canada and around the globe were looking forward to a new chapter in US foreign policy, I realized that Obama would continue US militarism and imperialism abroad using more polite rhetoric. I realized that he'd double down on Afghanistan and continue the long war as well as conduct saber-rattling against Iran. I realized he'd cut deals with insurance companies, fail to implement a public option, fail to reform the financial sector, and continue Clintonian, DLC Democratic policies. When idiotic commenters at DailyKos were fantasing an Obama victory that would entail the ousting of all DLC hacks from the Democratic Establishment, I knew better.

When fools thought Obama's lack of baggage and post-partisan rhetoric would serve him better dealing with the Right, I knew that the Rightwing Eco-Chamber wouldn't need long to tarnish Obama to a level they had with Slick Hillie and then some! I realized that the GOP won't cooperate and would obstruct whenever necessary - I realized progressives needed a polarizing master of wedge politics rather than a conceder-in-chief to push through the vestiges of a progressive agenda.

While I was supportive of Obama briefly in 2007, I realized he was hollow and probably just another Clintonian so I switched to backing Dennis Kuninich until January 2008, after which I shifted towards endorsing Edwards until he dropped out of the race later that month. In the general race, I advocated strategically voting for Obama in swing states but voting for Ralph Nader in solid states.

I realized that the economy wouldn't pick up, that the stimulus was too small, and that the electorate would blame Obama for 30 years of financial structural negligence. And I realized the Democrats would lose the midterms.

So I hardly see myself as a dyed-in-the-wool conformist, especially since I was an Obama skeptic when his campaign had the most momentum.

^ yeah, I voted for McCain..............

That'd probably have been a better option as the natural effects of the 30 + years of financial deregulation plus Dubya's blunderings would be borne out on a McCain Presidency rather than a Democratic Preisdency, thereby hurting the GOP come 2012. Lunatics in the Party who'd succeed at getting austerity measures enacted would also help discredit the GOP.

You do realize that here that splits the vote and they both lose, don't you?

How? Voting Obama in Swing states' helps Obama's chances of getting that State's electoral college votes and voting someone else in a state that is solidly Democratic or Republican won't change the outcome but sends a message to the Democratic Party and bumps a candidate's chances for reaching the public financing threshold.

Obama didn't win all the swing states and also needed solid blue states to win. Your plan would have caused McCain to win by a landslide.

My plan is based on the notion that the number of people hearing of, let alone following, my advice is well under the level needed to offset a solid Blue or Red State's alignment. The main target audience for my advice would be independent, non-partisan, voters who lean-left (college students, union or other workers, activists) who would lean towards voting Nader but worry about letting McCain in.

Back to the OP, the plot of the movie seems very stupid. Not just because of the prejudice it foments against atheists, but because of the improbability that a carpet-bagger could run for mayor in a semi-rural, socially conservative town on a platform of "say no to public displays of Christmas" and pose any threat ot the incumbent.

It is sort of like an American running for office in the Netherlands on the 'tilting at windmills' platform.

Hallmark of the season topic

Let the Christians have their Christmas. I try to understand how it is for them.