Okay, well, take that entire paragraph and post it as an image macro on reddit, and then we'll talk. Until then, the quote that keeps getting repeated is the context, and you should be screaming at the person who took (pieces of) it out in the first place.
I'm not exempting whoever made the image macro.
But if we're to assign blame, it goes something like this:
Tyson -> Should reasonably be aware that absolutely anything he says will be taken out of context and turned into an Internet meme.
Guy who made the macro -> Should reasonably be aware that his out-of-context quote will be seen by idiots who have no idea who Dr. Tyson is, who will then say stupid shit based on the limited context provided to them.
Guy who said the stupid shit -> Should have fucking hit Ctrl-K and typed "neil degrasse tyson" into the search box BEFORE going off on some stupid half-cocked rant about two sentences out of his entire career.
I'll grant there's blame to go around. But, characteristically, I am inclined to set most of it at the feet of the dipstick who couldn't be arsed to spend five minutes reading a Wikipedia article before publicly and angrily asserting his ignorance.
Tyson's detractors aren't the ones not helping Tyson.
Of course they fucking are. In what way are they helping?
he's pretty much the best fucking friend politically-active atheists HAVE.
Okay, in this context, does "atheist" mean "non-theist" or "nonthe-ist"? Because this distinction is important.
I think the phrase "politically-active" implies people who are pretty vocal in the "God does not exist" camp; that's what I meant to imply, anyway. But I'm not sure that it matters; I think what I said applies to both groups. NGT is out there, exerting all the influence he can, to fight the influence of religious dogma on public policy. That's good for people who disbelieve the existence of God as well as people who don't believe in the existence of God, as well as plenty of other demographics who believe in God but do not subscribe to the particular brand of narrow Christianity that is responsible for the various negative types of public policy we're talking about.
I stand by my assertion that taking a laser-focus on a single analogy out of the general context of his words misses his point entirely.
I'm not sure you actually asserted this.
I believe that I did:
Could you please explain to whoever this Callum person is that NGT IS in fact one of the most active people in the goddamn country at trying to get people interested in science, and in speaking out against the pernicious influence of superstition in setting public policy? And that, besides his Nova ScienceNow hosting duties, he is slated to host the upcoming Cosmos revival?
And then punch him in the stomach for me and explain what fucking Wikipedia is.
This is really a pretty good example of the type of people who give atheists a bad name: the sort of touchy little shit who jumps all over NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, of all people, and pisses and moans about how he just doesn't understand, instead of maybe spending a minute (a) doing a bit of research and (b) determining the proper direction to point his outrage in.
Mostly, it seemed like you were asserting this:This is really a pretty good example of the type of people who give atheists a bad name
Which is ironic given that you're calling the dude a "touchy little shit" while describing violence against him (yeah, I have weird, internally inconsistent rules for what discussions of violence are unpleasant).
No, what's ironic is that you're taking two hyperbolic sentences out of my post and missing the rest of it.
Yes, there's a line about punching somebody in the stomach -- I hope it was clear that I am not ACTUALLY advocating punching anyone in the stomach.
But no, my point as a whole was that somebody went off half-cocked about somebody he clearly doesn't know anything about, and I think that's fairly clear from reading my post in its entirety.
NGT does not derive authority from any source that demands he be inerrant. You can still like and support NGT on the whole and not agree with all of his claims, career choices, or political strategies.
Covered in PM. Of course I agree with this; I'd be an idiot not to.
My point is not some ridiculous assertion that NGT, or anyone else, is infallible. My point, once again, is that anyone who believes NGT does not actually understand the pernicious influence that religious organizations have in determining public policy is ignorant, and his time would be better served becoming less ignorant than proudly and vocally demonstrating his ignorance.
I'm not sure the objections raised by "Callum" (except maybe the holy war one) have been overstated. Nor do I think NGT is going to disagree with those sentiments or repeating them again.
Well, and that's my point: they're on the same damn side and Callum should have held his damn horses.
We also probably shouldn't be forwarding an inaccurate link between atheism, empiricism and superstition. Atheism isn't a promoter of empiricism nor an obstacle to superstition. That NGT promotes empiricism doesn't necessarily mean he's in any way a friend to atheists, especially the "worst kind" of atheists who you seem to take special offense to.
Technically true and an interesting point. Which may indeed be part of why Tyson drew the distinction he drew -- empiricists and atheists may have overlap (as do atheists and agnostics), but they're not the same thing.
As antagonistic as Dawkins is, altogether too many proponents of superstition are bluster-filled bullies like Bill O'Rielly. And unfortunately, sometimes the best strategy really is to mercilessly demolish someone. No one is going to sway O'Rielly from his horrible opinions.
Well, yes, since we're talking about people who preach to the choir, I don't think you'll find a bigger proponent of the "Sometimes people can't be reasoned with and someone just needs to point out that they're dumbasses" school than myself.
Maybe we should split into a thread called "Aperture Activism" or something.
I'd definitely say a threadsplit's in order; I'll see about getting to it later if nobody else does first. My break's about over and I'm still playing catchup.
