vendredi 20 juillet 2012
No, not P Z as in Myers, but P as in Politically, C as in Correct and all of it as in P Z Myers' attitude about your issue.*
Combatting sexism is of course very important on a community where P Z himself is shocking his wife (if he's married) continuously (well, every week) by stating how he prefers cephalopods to cats. Do I recall blogposts about brutally killed cats or is that just my imagination? Similarily about islamophobia when the whole concept is just a bit more anti-islmaic than Christianity traditionally is.
But to quit the quips, yes, there are people who are dreadfully PC, and when it comes to misogynism in others than himself, P Z is obviously sensitive about it.
Now, P Z, I am going to take a serious one about your other post on chromosome numbers. But this one is for thunderf00t.
There was a time when being an atheist was politically correct too. It was the one stand for the Puritanism of George Bernhard Shaw. A Calvinist who dedicated himself to deleting faith in God's freewill as much as his ancestors had deleted that in man's (you know the TULIP of Calvinism? T=Total depravity of man, U=Unconditional predestination ... in short, a man like Monty Collier who believes that stuff actually believes man has no freewill). There are about two ways of denying God's freewill. Outright denial of his existance or denying he is distinct from a universe which shows much of automatism and can be imagined - by Calvinist spooks - as totally automated.
And since being an atheist was politically correct, so was being a Darwinist.
In the monkey trial - Chesterton spoke of it as a contemporary - there was no side pretending the father should have a real choice as homescholing parents have. It was political correctness of either Calvinist or Atheist, either paleo-Calvinist or neo-Calvinist type imposed by whatever side got the upper hand in the trial and in similar trials and in other states and so on.
Now have you ever wondered how much you owe to a political correctness that your creationist ancestors (go back a few generations and do not limit creationist to creationist debaters, if you want to get my point correctly without any strawman, I am not saying you are a grandchild or greatgrandchild of Kent Hovind) would have reacted to exactly as you react to P Z Myers' attitude on Freethoughtblogs?
I have been posing that question to atheists and Darwinists in Sweden and been getting the response I am a conspiracy theorist. If conspiracy of equal stupidity, prejudice and ambition to exclude Christian good sense counts, then - and then only - do I stand guilty as charged. Except when it comes to fomenting that situation in the first place, there I am rather classical as conspiracy theorist.
Comments under my blogs are not 100% free speech. If someone does the verbal equivalent of what P Z Myers did with purportedly consecrated hosts, it will be deleted. If someone is consistently merely nasty about my own or someone else's person, it will be deleted. But apart from that, comments here are free speech. Up to you to estimate the percentage of free speech on those conditions, but you may feel welcome to drop a comment on science or philosophy or whatever whenever you like to.
Not meaning I am a scientist. I am a critic of modern science and believe that criticism can and should be done even by people not fully mastering the details of the disciplines they criticise - except they should try, and I try myself, to master the details of the specific points I criticise.
Will probably be up on the blog by tomorrow. Done, 20-VII, with a few edits.
*FreeThoughtBlogs and PZ Myers
Now, here is a link to a debate I had on your fan page on FB
Thunderf00t's fan base - no full freedom of speech