Angry Smurf

The rant starts at 1:20:

Compare to:

This entry was posted in New Atheism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Angry Smurf

  1. TFBW says:

    There’s no comparison. Mr Deity was long-winded, and the more he talked, the more of an idiot he looked. Angry Smurf understands that brevity is the soul of wit, even if the “wit” part consists of the contrast between cute, high-voiced children’s story character and curmudgeonly profanity.

    Look, I know that Mr Deity markets himself as a mocker, not a thinker, but he stood there and spouted unimaginative profanity at the pope for several minutes, with his primary point being (2:16) “there are and can be no limits on freedom of speech,” and, (3:16) “your recourse, instead, is to do exactly what I’m doing here: speak your mind in opposition. That’s it!” Now, it’s somewhat ironic that Mr Deity makes these pronouncements as though he were speaking ex cathedra on the subject, or at least as though it were a matter over which there must be no dissent (while accusing the pope of totalitarianism), but when you consider that the entire thing is a response to papal speech — well, my irony meter just broke a vital part.

    And he even got an atheist folklore reference to Galileo in there (2:25). It’s like he was aiming at witty satire, but only made it half way there.

  2. dernostalgischetyp says:

    I figured New atheism out a long time ago, its all about money! Altough they will of course say thats what religion is for but I am pretty sure someone how goes to africa to build schools is not in for the money. I mean what is it the new atheism actually DOES!? Some nut job says something outrageous they respond or they just get there Daylie doses of ego food, do they really thing the Companys that make the Atheist watches Atheist shoes Ahteist magazins CARE about there Atheism? They a just a new Focus group for the market place, Suply and demand. They demand to feel superior to other people and the market Suplys All these youtube fit also into this they need to say the most ridiculous and fanatic Bullcrap so they cause Web traffic and to that extend MONEY.What rational

    This is a “movment with no political Ideas, no form of plan of how the Utopian society is going to look like. They dont even Know that the eradication of Faith from the human mind is not only Impossible from a natural standpoint but also from a legal on, the declaration of human rights says that all human beings have fredom of Religion and that all of the Laws are unchangeable, so what are they going to do? End democracy? In 10 years they are going to be exactly where they are now absolutly nowehre. And it should be said why is atheism supposed to be Important? There are like a million other things that are way more Important for the human race right now. And no the End religion and Conflict in the world is completly Bullocs by that Logic we here in Europe should now fight with each other over the split of the church or still hunt jews but we dont. Why? Because human beings are not some empty bottles that can be filled with whatever you like! For this reason communism failed because they did not want to understand that humans DO NOT work like a formula or a computer they have emotions and feelings and Free will and those are In no way logical or rational. There is this weird idea that Reason is somehow related to good behavor but its not Reason tells me how to build Computers and medicine and space ships but they dont tell me anything of my intention! Thats the Point I can build a bomb to kill a city so I can create more Power or I can build a factory so that People have jobs and something to eat etc. The new atheism sees Altruism as naturaly given and all bad thins as a anomaly of the programm also not true its just a fact that some People really are JUST EVIL they dont care about politics they dont care about your or my philosophy.

    At the Infamous “Sportpalast” speech of josehp goebbels he said one Hour later at the hotel “This hour of idiotism, if i told them to jum of the roof they did it too”. Or this one “one dead man is a tragedy one hundredthousans thats just a statistic” – Josehp stalin. They cant or wont understand the true nature of Evil which is nihilistic. And of course some people how do evil Truly do belive in there own Ideas but I really think those are a minority.

    lets face it the internet is only good for entertaiment and Information but to build a Movment or change the world it needs a bit more than just ranting on the internet, and a cause that is realistic maybe also help. to me new atheism Is a hobby for people without a hobby.

    Peace out I am going to watch Nostalgia critic and some Cat Videos now 😀

  3. dernostalgischetyp says:

    sorry for bad english german here 😀

  4. GM says:

    Imagine how stupid he would feel if he took ten seconds to think “Maybe this is due to broken English…”

    The Pope, especially THIS Pope advocating retaliatory violence over an insult would be a massive aberration. I think it’s kind of obvious that he’s saying “If you poke a bear long enough…” Yeah, we would put the bear down after he mauls you, but check your expectations of reaction beforehand and save everyone the trouble.

  5. TFBW says:

    Imagine how stupid he would feel if he took ten seconds to think “Maybe this is due to broken English…”

    The interview was conducted in Italian. Mr Deity is, no doubt, working from various translations which have appeared in the news. He’s also quoting out of context. For example, he left out the bit where the pope said, “Credo che tutte e due siano diritti umani fondamentali: la libertà religiosa e la libertà di espressione,” which Google translates as, “I think both are fundamental human rights: freedom of religion and freedom of expression.”

    I didn’t comment on the whole misrepresentation angle earlier because, frankly, it would have been remarkable if Mr Deity didn’t attack a straw man. He’s a mocker, not a thinker, and you’re not going to shame him by pointing out his errors. Mockery has no need of accuracy.

  6. GRA says:

    LOL This guy pull SO MANY cards of cliches that it ain’t funny (despite my LOL). Let me attempt to list –

    (1) 2000 yrs of supposed shameful history
    (2) Accusation that decency and humanity is unknown and not practiced
    (3) Galileo trial
    (4) burning & murdering
    (5) Preaching to Catholics about “love” not hate and violence
    (6) Turn the other cheek bard
    (7) The use of “knuckle dragging” with the companion of “caveman”

    Also, the most telling: “I win either way.” Modernists are children. Modernists want to win by all costs.

  7. Bilbo says:

    1. I haven’t read the entirety of the Pope’s statement about the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
    2. I strongly suspect that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were a false flag operation, involving the French government and perhaps NATO and other countries. So I don’t think the attacks were really a reaction by Muslim terrorists.
    3. However, based on the small fragment of the Pope’s statement shown in the video, I can understand and sympathize with the atheist’s reaction. I would be inclined to react that way, myself.
    4. However, the statements seem very out of character with what I know of Pope Francis. I suspect that there was more that he said, which would give a more understandable context for the statements in the video.

  8. Dhay says:

    There has been much discussion here recently about Poes. The “Mr Deity” video above is a classic is-it-a-Poe problem, in that it might be a genuine New Atheist rant, or else it might be a parody of New Atheist rants, posted to take the mickey out of New Atheists.

    Poe’s Law (amended for relevance): Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is utterly impossible to parody a New Atheist in such a way that someone won’t mistake for the genuine article.

    TFBW found the key to understanding the video. > Look, I know that Mr Deity markets himself as a mocker, not a thinker, but he stood there and spouted unimaginative profanity at the pope for several minutes, with his primary point being (2:16) “there are and can be no limits on freedom of speech,” and, (3:16) “your recourse, instead, is to do exactly what I’m doing here: speak your mind in opposition. That’s it!”

    The unconditional, “there are and can be no limits on freedom of speech,” is an obvious winking smiley: no person in their right mind would say that; this inanity legitimises the extremist who urges young men to go off to military training camps, then to come back and murder French journalists and Belgian police officers; it legitimises the passing of military secrets to an enemy; it legitimises the sharing of paedophile images; it legitimises libel and slander; it legitimises the employee who swears at “Fucking nigger” customers; heck, it even legitimises verbal harassment of atheists.

    To merely “speak your mind in opposition” is woefully inadequate, and I fully intend to continue to vote – as evidently do my fellow citizens, those on both Left and Right – for politicians who will pass and enforce legislation – heck, the legislation is in the statute books already (ie Mr Deity is factually wrong to say there are no limits…), so I’ll vote for those who will keep it there – legislation applying and enforcing limits on freedom of speech.

    Brian Dalton (Mr Deity) isn’t someone who can think things through, is he.

    No person in their right mind would say, “there are and can be no limits on freedom of speech”; not the proverbial person in the street; least of all any person responsible for protecting the public (certainly not if seeking re-election – they would be rejected by Right and Left alike.) Dalton’s “Mr Deity” video looks rather like a parody of New Atheist ranters – such as Mr Deity. Nice self-parody, Mr Deity.

    I see Jerry Coyne took it at face value – well he would, wouldn’t he.

  9. Dhay says:

    Jerry Coyne’s “Da Roolz” for commenting on his blog posts are interesting. Rule #22 is particularly interesting, the one which says that anyone who even ever so lightly criticises one of Coynes friends – Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are the two I know about, though there may be more – anyone who even ever so lightly criticises one of Coynes friends will have their comment promptly disappear and will find themselves permanently banned. “What Rule #22?”, you say, and you are right, there is no such rule: Coyne’s hypersensitivity on behalf of other (selected, eg not PZ Meyers) New Atheists is ‘The Elephant in the Living Room’.

    “Living room” is indeed appropriate, for Rule #6 says: “Do not insult your host. Pretend that you’re speaking to me in my living room which is, in a sense, what this website is.

    The other side of the double standard, contrasting sharply with Coyne’s hyper-sensitivity towards criticism of his friends, is Coyne’s recent “Mr. Deity calls out the Pope” blog, where he has, ”in my living room which is, in a sense, what this website is”, reproduced what the video’s opening “WARNING!!!” notice tells us is the most virulently abusive hate-mail (for hate-mail is what it is) that Mr Deity could think of – “This video contains the strongest language I could think of.” Coyne evidently approves of it – he has reproduced it, hence he has “owned” it and its foul language and abusiveness as his own; Coyne is here hyper-insensitive.

    Coyne is happy to have Mr Deity swearing in his living room – heck, he invited Mr Deity in, into his living room “in a sense”, to do it, and also invited 30,000 or so subscribers in to listen to it; if that’s the sort of behaviour Coyne finds acceptable, I don’t want to know Coyne socially, for Coyne comes across as very uncouth.

    What Coyne is effectively doing by publishing and publicising the “Mr Deity” video is to disseminate the worst kind of hate mail. Though the Pope presumably does not have an accessible e-mail account or website to send this hate mail to, one where it will be viewed by Roman Catholics, Coyne doesn’t let that stop him, but provides a viewing platform for the hate mail on his own blog, in his own ”living room.”

    Rule #20 includes, “I try to use as light a hand as I can consonant with keeping an atmosphere of civility and sanity. Ah, so now we know that for Coyne, hate mail to the Pope is civility and sanity.

    In comment #8, a “Mr Atheist” accused the Pope of being a paedophile – “Fuck the fucking cocksmoking child rapist Pope.” Coyne comes back to him to say he must not accuse anyone of crimes they have not committed – it might get them, and Coyne also, sued. Does Coyne delete this civil and sane comment? No, his only concern seems to be he might get sued. Does, he ban the commenter? No, it’s “Fuck the Pope” at length, through several more posts. Coyne’s blog is a posting site for hate mail.

    Comment #20: ”Ha! Fuck you pope dick breath! You violent piece of adult diaper shit!”. Words fail me. Any website owner receiving this would immediately delete it as an example of the worst kind of abusive hate mail – or, in the case of New Atheist websites, flaunt it to show what utter ignorant shits the commenters are; but Coyne encourages his commenters to show – some of them – what utter ignorant shits they are.

    Coyne sees nothing wrong with being an utter ignorant shit; his is a site that tolerates and welcomes them — they accord with his rule requiring civility and sanity, they accord with his standard of civility and sanity.

  10. GM says:

    I’m in a long, protracted argument with an atheist at thinkingchristian about mockery. I find it really illuminating how adamantly atheists defend mockery as a duty or moral good. They use these really heavy handed, paternalistic justifications that I can’t quite take at face value. I think mockery has become something like a substitute for mystical experience in religion. It’s their most visceral form of epistemic reward: religion experiences contact with the Divine as a confirmation of faith, atheists experience perceived superiority of faith heads as confirmation of atheism. Mockery is activist atheism’s prime sacrament.

  11. TFBW says:

    Mockery is activist atheism’s prime sacrament.

    Mockery also acts as excellent protection against the possibility that your opponent has a valid point, since it requires no actual engagement with your opponent’s views.

  12. Billy Squibs says:

    “I’m in a long, protracted argument with an atheist at thinkingchristian about mockery.”

    The funny thing is that Ray threw a wobbly not so long ago when I employed a bit of mockery when he used a particular phrase that unbeknownst to him had in part a very unfortunate association. He reported me for it. All of which makes me slight dubious about whether he is being consistent in this matter. And to be clear I think you both made good points in that conversation.

    In Ray’s defense he has never struck me as the type of atheist who relies on sneering mockery when he interacts with theists (at least those on Thinking Christian). If you are correct about the centrality that mockery plays for the atheist in his interactions with the theist* I think that his behavior is praiseworthy in this regard.

    * This is a generalised statement. I’m talking about a type of personality who chooses to interact in certain ways. I suppose around these parts they would called a “Gnu”. I realise that the same could be said of a certain type of theist.

  13. GM says:

    I do like Ray. He can test the patience of a Monk with some of his argument techniques, as he uses what I consider to be pretty loose parallels and tries to get you to make your argument work where it was never intended to. That drives me insane.

    I’m being a little crass with my observation about atheist attachment to mockery, but I think a lot of the activist atheist types DO put a very bizarre moral weight on it, and I think it’s partly because that’s where they “experience” their atheism the most viscerally.

    Ray, on the other hand, hasn’t really struck me as an archetype of the Gnu. I wouldn’t carry on with him if he did.

  14. TFBW says:

    Ray? I had my lifetime quota of him back in 2013. He’s not a mocker, but he’s unable to express anything in sufficiently precise terms that it could actually be refuted, he expects you to defend the straw-man positions he ascribes to you, and he’s got the worst case of confirmation bias ever. I gave up arguing with him because I can’t work miracles, and that’s what it would take to penetrate his neatly sewn-up world view.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.