All I can say is, good thing this isn't a Canadian-based site, or there would be hell to pay from our All-Knowing Overlords, aka the Human Rights Commission (now with 500% less right to appeal!). But seriously, I really don't see how this doesn't qualify as actual hate speech.
And Bill Maher thinks religious people are hypocrites. What a fool. If you're going to insult the majority of the world (disbeliefnet takes on all faiths, no matter how major or marginal), you could at least try to hide it in the pretext of legitimate debate and philosophical proofs. But hey, if Richard Dawkins can't be bothered to do that - and he cant, The God Delusion is overwhelming in its complete lack of attempt to engage established philosophical methods - why should a small fish like Maher?
It's not so much the fact that he thinks all religion is stupid that makes the site offensive, it's the virulently aggressive, hateful, and low-brow way in which he posits that idea. Seriously, this is even more junk-pop "philosophy" than Sam Harris. The "suggestion box" portion of the site makes it clear that they won't debase themselves to do something so mundane as give respect or a legitimate response to any dissenting e-mails they receive - those will just be something else to laugh at. Truly unbelievable. I'm always stunned that this sort of person believes they stand for freedom of speech.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
the assertion that those of faith are stupid is actually one of the only helpful comments made by most an-theists I've read.
there is a fundamental epistemological divide between those who accept faith as a warranting process for knowledge and those who only allow reason.
unfortunately this base premise has been ignored by both sides and has resulted in mere circular arguments.
so many of those debating sound exactly like the side they are opposing. it's like those joke paragraphs where most of the words are filled in but for select spaces left blank where you enter random words. in this debate the random words are science, religion, faith, reason, violence, fundamentalist, proud, etc.
Logan
I'm confused. You call that website an example of "hate speech", but you reference no specific examples where "hate speech" is being used.
It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Not sure if you've heard of it, but clearly this website was created to spark debate over religion and how it benefits and hurts our society.
If you noticed, the majority of the website is comprised of links to real websites that support a number of silly ideas.
Before you characterize this website as HATE SPEECH, maybe take a moment to contemplate the meaning of the movie.
i feel you are implying that i don't understand satire or debate, those things being, as far as i can tell, the intended purpose of the film, and that i am against free speech. this is a large presumption to make based on one post that ruffles your feathers.
the thing about satire is, it need not be insulting to be effective, and i maintain that Maher's attempts at satire fall under the category of hate speech because of simple ignorant laziness.
keeping in the web information sphere of things, here's wikipedia's definition of hate speech: "Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability,[...]" the director of "Religulous" did this with "Borat", in the guise of comedic satire, and sparked a wave of "aren't they backwards!" commentary in the western media when the people of Kazakhstan dared speak out against the film for portraying a false and very degrading picture of their culture for us to laugh at. you might say, "well, smart people will know Kazakhs are not like that!"; unfortunately, racial hatred and discrimination thrives on appealing to the lowest common denominator.
using the first listed definition, speech intended to degrade, i'd say that current "Jewish Morality Poll" on front page of disbeliefnet does that pretty well, as well as the out-of-context verse from Jeremiah - "I am weary of holding it in--indeed I cannot", a completely un-subtle potty joke. again, there is a difference between satire and exposing groups to ridicule. the trailer for the film has Maher ridiculing a man while comparing his faith to being as stupid as believing in santa claus and attempting to get him to admit what a fool he is.
that particular line of argument is not only old and worn out, it is widely recognized by people who make a profession out of debating comparative religions as being weak, lazy, and lacking any pretense of proper debate or philosophy. it would never stand up in a real discussion. if Maher really intends to provoke open and honest discussion, he is going about it the entirely wrong way by not making an effort to engage in proper debate, or even demonstrate a knowledge of the ideas he is arguing against. he knows what people believe, and what sounds ridiculous about those beliefs, but does not bother exploring the most important question: why people believe them. and this criticism is not based purely on press for "Religulous" - i remember his abruptly canceled TV show, "Politically Incorrect", and he used the same methods there.
like it or not, these sort of things do incite others to "prejudicial action". richard dawkins, a learned man and favourite of what's often referred to as the "new atheist" movement, has publicly stated that any professors at oxford (where dawkins works) who believe in intelligent design should be fired, and students who believe in such should not be permitted to study at the school. this flies in the face of academic freedom, and free speech as well.
at any rate, i find that the accusation of being against free speech is often leveled a bit too freely against people who recognize the concept of hate speech. i would have thought my support of freedom of speech was made clear by my reference to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which i feel is extremely overzealous. someone found guilty by the commission of hate speech or discrimination in this country has no right to appeal. that is just wrong - but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who don't cross dangerous lines.
on a related note, if i am truly against free speech, as you suggest, why did i not reject The Mist out of hand because of Marcia Gay Harden's hate-spewing fundamentalist character? A cursory scan of the post will show that, though it was a struggle for me to understand the character and her purpose, my primary desire was to unravel and understand rather than accuse the film of exposing all Christians to prejudice and ridicule. most importantly, in the case of The Mist, i was hearing a story from an author and a director who recognize that the truly important question is not what people believe, but WHY. Bill Maher has yet to demonstrate that interest through his work, and that is why i believe it crosses the line of hate.
there is a strange and effective way that the tone of Dawkins, Hitchens, Mayer, etc "incite[s] violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people."
Rather then inciting hatred against another group it incites hatred towards itself. it lends it's hatred to the opponent. and then when theists respond in hatred their whole argument is nullified.
these guys are not interested in dialogue.
Logan
Post a Comment