You didn’t actually address my question…Did you even watch the same video? I’ve watched this about a 1/2 a dozen times, please point where he threatens sexual violence? Better yet here’s the transcript http://podblack.com/2009/01/tim-minchins-storm-now-featured-online/
Maybe you could point out the specific passage, line or verse. Because your right in the sense that using the threat of physical or sexual violence for the purpose of winning an argument is highly offensive, but regardless of gender (I however do not agree that it’s more so when the target is a woman.) What is equally offensive if not more so is creating an imagined threat for shock value or for the purposes of haranguing a targeted audience of readers to persuade them to your way of thinking. In this instance said audience is made up of people that may show the inkling of interest in Tim’s work. You’ve abused the initial intention of this post, which was to promote an up and coming artist, and used it as your own personal pulpit to pontificate and impose ‘your’ values and ‘subjective’ tastes and passing them off as fact….like that guy who goes to rock concerts to just stand outside waving a sign saying “you’re all going to hell” and variations on that theme. Yes you have the right to your ‘opinion’….but so does everyone else.

“In every reply I have made pains to make simple declarative sentences that directly refute any criticisms I’ve received. You could reduce every comment I’ve made to a logical proposition and evaluate it’s validity on logical grounds. ”

Why don’t you go ahead and diagram your statement 43. “I’m pretty sure that there are greedy Jews, lazy blacks, limp wristed gays, man-hating lesbians and self absorbed women.”

You wouldn’t want to be misconstrued…

For the record I didn’t even know who Michelle Bachmann was until you made me google her, wasn’t even on my radar…that’s 20 seconds of my life I won’t get back…but thanks for giving me another politician to thoroughly despise…as if the list wasn’t long enough.

To those of you going to the show, I hope you have a blast. I’m seeing him in NY in November and can’t wait.

One is not made less prejudiced if the group in question can change the trait they are being prejudged for holding. Yes, opinions can be mocked, I have no objection to that. What I object to is creating a stereotype, personifying it and then attacking and belittling the person who embodies that stereotype.

–
MBH siad:
“Isn’t this in itself an inherently sexist view?”

No it isn’t. There is no attempt on the part of the man in the monologue to try to engage her in rational debate. It’s pretty clear that he is violently opposed to her, even to the point of threatening sexual violence. Using physical or sexual threats in order to force someone to comply with you is deeply offensive regardless of the gender of the other person and definitely sexist when that person is a woman.

I have no problem with ridiculing people who say dumb or offensive things. In fact I do it all the time. But it is in response to specific people who make specific claims. Make fun all you like of Michelle Bachmann and her ignorant ideas but don’t attribute her ideas to everyone in Minnesota or in her social class.

“And yet here you are beating away…with four different, and increasingly offensive posts….cheers.”

Browbeating is to intimidate another with verbal abuse with the aim of forcing compliance. At absolutely no point have I engaged in ad homs or personal attack. In every reply I have made pains to make simple declarative sentences that directly refute any criticisms I’ve received. You could reduce every comment I’ve made to a logical proposition and evaluate it’s validity on logical grounds. This is deliberate. I have learned that commentors on so-called skeptical or atheist blogs are the most irrational and intolerant people I’ve encountered. Of course that doesn’t imply that their opinions are wrong. It is possible to hold correct opinions for the wrong reasons.

Isn’t this in itself an inherently sexist view? That women as a whole are not equipped to articulate let alone defend said opinions. You’re essentially promoting the idea that women should have free reign to say what they want without opposition or logical debate….almost like how adults treat small children who’ve had too much sugar. As a woman I find that idea incredibly patronizing and wholly insulting…
On the same vein are men just meant to take verbal abuse stoically, without a word (i.e. “sit there and look pretty”)? …because that’s not sexist in the least…oh wait…

“It is inappropriate and indeed intolerant to respond to someone who does not see things the way you do to try to brow beat or harangue them into submitting to your opinion, even if, and especially if, you are right.”

And yet here you are beating away…with four different, and increasingly offensive posts….cheers.

Cheers BA!

Okay, I just can’t leave this one alone.

You can’t change being Jewish (ethnically, at least – you can definitely change your religion), black, gay or lesbian, or female (unless you’re transgender, in which case you need to specify whether the ‘self-absorbed’ stereotype is attached to the female sex or the female gender. If it’s sex, then yes, you can change that).

You can, however, change having stupid views.

Cards on the table – I used to believe a lot of the same stuff that Storm believes in in the song. I changed those views when I realised the evidence just didn’t work in their favour. I have at no point changed my ethnicity, sexuality, or gender, and yeah, I’d be pissed off if someone wrote something mocking those.

But illogical views? With no supporting evidence? That CAN be mocked.

Engineers in particular are susceptible to a kind of epistemic arrogance because they have been taught a highly filtered and “received” view of science and even of the history of science.

No, we’re taught practical design skills and methodologies and a way of looking at problems so that you can have a shiny computer to go on an absolute marvel of a global network and insult us. You’re welcome, by the way. Science and the history of science is a completely different thing, and I can read the same books you can.

1.) The fact that I have not met anyone fitting a stereotype does not make that stereotype true.

2.) Nor does the fact that you have met people fitting your stereotyped view confirm the reality of your stereotype.

“They like to think they’re insightful.( It’s an ego thing.)”

1.) The inability to allow others to hold views we do not have without being disagreeable ourselves is also egotism.

2.) The unwillingness to allow women to hold opinions contrary to one’s own is sexism.

“it’s the exact same mental limitation that applies to anyone who cannot understand the evidence right in front of their faces.”

It is inappropriate and indeed intolerant to respond to someone who does not see things the way you do to try to brow beat or harangue them into submitting to your opinion, even if, and especially if, you are right.

“Which is why we have those peculiar people we call scientists who,via the “rules of evidence” search for knowledge.”

Which “rules” would those be? The ones you were taught in your high school science class? There is in fact no one set of rules which all scientists follow. There are as a matter of fact many different scientific methods used across many different disciplines. There simply is no such thing as “the” scientific method.

To believe there is only one way to fix facts about the world is to mythologize science. Which is indeed a faith based, not a factually based belief system.

“W/o THEM we’d still be shivering in caves, praying over our sick and injured and watching helplessly as they freaking DIE. “

Actually, reason did not evolve as a means to fit individual opinion to facts, it evolved as a collective means to forge group consensus because groups that co-operate out compete those that do not. Diversity of opinion and epistemic humility should be valued by any true critical thinker because it is only through them we can come to a better understanding of the world and so survive.

If you cannot defend your ideas without verbally abusing your opponents then your ideas are without merit. The point isn’t to “win” arguments. The point is to understand the world and that no single person holds the One Truth.

“Then of course, there are those of us who are mainly of an engineering outlook”

Engineers in particular are susceptible to a kind of epistemic arrogance because they have been taught a highly filtered and “received” view of science and even of the history of science. The reality is very different and messy. There is a significant gap between how science is taught and how it was actually conducted both today and in the past.

A little epistemic humility would go a long way. It is the lack of that humility in the video and in the New Atheist community at large to which I object.

Storm isn’t a particularly gender-specific name. In fact the baby in Canada whose gender the parents are deliberately not revealing is named Storm.

I have met many Storms (though none with literally that name) of all persuasions, sexual as well as political. Minchin’s particular storm might fit some people’s stereotypes, but it is her beliefs and mind set that make her annoying and amusing, not anything intrinsic. That same mind set, a readiness to believe without evidence convenient things that fit your world view, that underlays conspiracy theories, global warming denialism, racism, sexism, religious fundamentalism, and other delusions commonly associated with the right, as well as alternative medicine and the naturalistic fallacy and other fantasies commonly associated with the left. Minchin’s song implicitly points that out (listen to his description of the pompous doctor who hosts the little dinner party.) The target of this song is someone who probably shares most of Minchin’s (and my) values, making her failure at critical thinking all the more annoying. If someone you don’t like anyway and whose values you despise demonstrates they’re an idiot, you don’t get annoyed, you just laugh at them.

I’m starting to ramble (starting?) tl;dr: Storm is neither sexist nor right-wing.

“it wouldn’t surprise me the least if this particular fiction was inspired by real life”

“I have never met anyone who believes the things claimed in the video. Oh, and it’s clear in the video just who it is that is intolerant.”

Hmmm, perhaps you just don’t get(out of the door, down on the street, all alone,,,) very often?

While living in Oakland in the late ’90s, I met a young woman who claimed she became a witch(not Wicken) by selling her soul to the Devil.

,,,my response was simply,,,”You can’t sell what you don’t own,,,”

I’ve met plenty of people, some female, some few male, who espoused exactly the same B.S as the female in this video. They like to think they’re insightful.( It’s an ego thing.) Unfortunately, it’s the exact same mental limitation that applies to anyone who cannot understand the evidence right in front of their faces.

Which is why we have those peculiar people we call scientists who,via the “rules of evidence” search for knowledge.

W/o THEM we’d still be shivering in caves, praying over our sick and injured and watching helplessly as they freaking DIE.

Then of course, there are those of us who are mainly of an engineering outlook, ie, we use what actually works(as in, praying over your bridge won’t make it stand up).

Gary 7

It’s undoubtedly true that attractive people spouting woo frequently get a pass from members of the opposite sex (now THAT’S sexist!).

What makes this piece funny is that Minchin isn’t willing to let Storm get away with her ridiculous statements simply because she’s physically appealing. He’s illuminating that inner conflict: “He/she is attractive, but a moon bat. I can let it slide and have a shot with him/her, or call him/her on the carpet and destroy my chances.” Is this a noble way of thinking? No, but it’s very human and typical.

The fact that Minchin’s wife is also a character makes it funnier still, because he can’t possibly win either way (be nice to Storm and be accused of straying, or let her have it with both barrels and create an awkward social situation). And that is the essence of comedy; to quote Mel Brooks: “Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die.”

No of course not you’ll just post it as a comment to someone’s blog….you don’t like the video. good for you. that’s really all you had to say and go away to spout your vitriol elsewhere.

I have a hard time not seeing that as being just a tad sexist and no, not all examples of sexism must be so obvious or directed at the totality of women everywhere.

I don’t really get the whole right-wing attack thing. Yes, it is the case that republicans can be sexist but I’d hardly call that a republican only tactic.

Pretty much anyone can be sexist, even members of the skeptic community.

Yeah, geez, it’s not like it’s Detroit or something.

Alas, I didn’t get a chance to visit Detroit when I was in the States. Although if I ever do, I will definitely be visiting their nifty science centre!

You’re right! I should have never advocated yelling and using ad homs!

Oh, wait… I didn’t. :- Speaking of strawmen…

(Hit my allotment of facepalm for the week, sorry. I can give you a light headdesk or a derpy eyeroll?)

“because you personally have never met someone like the person he describes they can’t possibly exist”

I’m pretty sure that there are greedy Jews, lazy blacks, limp wristed gays, man-hating lesbians and self absorbed women. But I’d never do a monologue like this one about them. And I could go to the deep south, New Yawk and the Castro district and find examples of the most outrageous stereotypes you can imagine…. but that would mean… what exactly?

That people fitting the description of one’s strawman exist does not make it any less filled with straw.

That a woman produced the video is not a valid argument against it being sexist.

I think Storm needs her own video where she gets to have her say.

–
“This is a war for the intellectual future of our country.”

Huh, you see, I must be weird because I don’t think you win intellectual disagreements by going to war, literally or metaphorically. You win by convincing people that you have the better argument, not by yelling at them. Ad hominem does not convince people of how wonderful your beliefs are. Quite the opposite, it pushes people away.

Don’t be a dick, sound advice if you ask me.

You’re up late, too.

If you attack an abstraction, it’s too easy for the believers to think “oh, well, that’s not *me* they’re making fun of.” These are already deluded people in denial.

This is a war for the intellectual future of our country. We need to go after the *specific* leaders, hard and fast. Show them to be the fools that they are. We almost need some sort of coordinated psychological operation.

We need to convince people in high places to start speaking out more on these things. I’m just some guy who has managed to get over a dozen personal acquaintances weaned off woo (mainly Sylvia Browne).

BTW, please feel free to come to Boulder to meet as many people like Storm as you’d care to. Or as Sam-Hec (37) pointed out, NorCal (where I lived for six years).

And Quiet Desperation (21), attacking archetypes is not noise at all. In fact, that claim is way off base; I attack general arguments quite often, and everything Storm says in the video is something I have heard uttered by various people almost verbatim. Go look at any of the posts where I write about alt-med, as an obvious example.

Yeah, geez, it’s not like it’s Detroit or something.