Curtis, fair warning, you DO NOT WANT TO READ THIS. You want to keep your head firmly buried in the sand so you can work on your music. Trust me on this.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious > > > claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty > > > much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the > > > Simpsons and the Family Guy. > > > > Are they really funny, or are they just mean? > > The fact that THE CORRECTOR cannot tell > the difference How could I "tell the difference" when I've never watched either show? makes Curtis' whole point > about her compulsively defending "privileged" > religious beliefs that do not need defending. <snip> > The only thing THE CORRECTOR can see is someone > being "mean" to people by mocking their "privileged" > religious claims. > Well, no, Barry completely missed *my* point. As I said to Curtis last night in reference to *his* mockery (before he made the post quoted above, ironically; if he'd read my post, he probably wouldn't have made the one above): "If you were George Carlin, maybe you could get away with it. But your mockery isn't funny enough to make the medicine go down, IMHO, even for mature adults." George Carlin was very funny. I assume "Simpsons" and "Family Guy" are also very funny, because they're so popular. What I disapprove of--because it's counterproductive in changing behavior--is *mean* mockery. But if it's really funny, it can be like the old saw about the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down. Funny can get past resistance and actually do some good, as Barry goes on to note: > The religions in question that have been mocked by > The Simpsons have wisely *laughed along* with the > mockery, and hopefully in a few cases even learned > from it. Exactly. *That* was my point. But that isn't the case with *mean* mockery. Mean mockery just pisses people off, and they stop listening altogether. If you can keep 'em laughing, it's a lot harder for them to keep up their defenses. > One of the points that Curtis has been trying to > make is that the compulsive "defenders" of religion > (especially when it's theoretically not their *own* > religion they are compulsively defending) are basic- > ally closet Victorians. As in the description of > codependency I posted not long ago, they view people > as being *unable to defend themselves or take care > of themselves*. The codependent activist feels that > it is his or her *job* to defend these weak people > that others are being "mean" to. But the whole bot- > tom line of the disorder is that the "defense" is > a closet way of putting them down. "They're too weak > to stand up for themselves, so I have to do it." This may be the case with some people, but not with me. As I've said to Curtis over and over in this discussion--which Barry obviously hasn't read, or hasn't been able to comprehend (and which Curtis is too chicken to challenge him on)--I think going after *behavior* is much more effective than going after beliefs per se. If you can get people to see that their *behavior* is wrong, they can no longer think of that behavior as something God wants. And they'll start questioning their beliefs on their own. That's much more powerful than somebody else telling them their beliefs are wrong. An exception, of course, is Scientology, > which tried to adopt THE CORRECTOR's approach and > have the episode mocking them *banned*. Completely wrong. I don't want to ban anything, especially not if it's really funny. > THAT is what her stance is really about. She is > trying desperately to make Curtis the Bad Guy for > mocking something that just *screams* to be mocked. Completely wrong. It's *mean* mockery I object to. > Her goal on FFL is to encourage one or more other > posters to post something critical of Curtis for > expressing his stance. Completely wrong. I have no such goal. Curtis and I, in fact, have had a reasonably cordial agree-to- disagree discussion about the practical value of challenging religious beliefs. I have no basis to "demonize" him for his stance on this and have not done so. In this she has FAILed as > completely as she has when trying the same thing > with other posters she was trying to demonize over > the years. Since I wasn't trying to do anything of the kind, there's no way I could have "failed" at it. > The wisest promoters *of* the beliefs being mocked > realize not only the unprovable but also the ridic- > ulous nature of many of their beliefs, and thus > laugh along with the audience when they are poked > fun at well. Indeed. And quite possibly even some who aren't so wise. Humor--*funny* humor, not mean humor--can get past their defenses if it's done right and make them see the ridiculousness of the beliefs without having to beat them over the head. All that THE CORRECTOR can see is > someone being "mean" to weak people that she, being > "strong," must defend. What a crock. What self- > serving, self-important crap. Completely wrong. I'm not defending beliefs, I'm promoting a focus on bad behavior because I think it's the most effective way to defeat beliefs that lead to bad behavior, or at least to modify them so they become harmless. > THE CORRECTOR had several paths open to her when > Curtis began his latest round of challenging and > poking fun at certain religious beliefs like karma, > reincarnation, and the caste system. She could have > laughed along with the mockery (like the millions > who laugh along when The Simpsons make fun of belief > systems equally tenuous and unprovable). She could > have gone all "serious" and tried to make a case for > karma and reincarnation and the caste system episto- > mologically or philosophically, and thus put her > *own* opinion and ass on the line. But she didn't. Completely wrong. As I said right from the start, there's *no* epistemological case to be made for karma and reincarnation and the caste system; that's all purely theoretical and therefore has *no* implications for behavior. So making a case for any of it philosophically would be utterly irrelevant if what you want to do is change behavior. (Actually Barry knows this is what I said because he chimed in on the discussion on this very point. I'll be happy to quote his post if anybody wants to question whether he knows it. And of course Curtis knows it, but he's too much of a coward to acknowledge it and risk losing Barry's support.) > But she chose the easiest and the laziest path of > all -- she chose to try to make Curtis out to be a > Bad Guy for mocking beliefs *she* is too lazy to > actually defend intellectually. As noted, defending the beliefs would have been irrelevant. Also, it took awhile for the discussion to get around to mockery (the mean kind). Initially it was about whether challenging beliefs epistemologically--demanding proof and so on--was as effective in changing bad behavior as going after the behavior itself and making a case that it was wrong without reference to beliefs. The mockery was a subsidiary point that came up much later, and, again, only with reference to *mean* mockery of the type Curtis indulges in, which I think is totally self-defeating. > It's always the same -- when someone says something > that gets a laugh on this forum, *especially* if the > laughter is justified because it reveals the shaky > foundations of a belief system she secretly believes > in but is afraid to admit to believing in herself Completely wrong. Barry's conveniently forgotten that a good part of the discussion revolved around the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, something in which I very actively *DISbelieve*. (Again, Curtis knows this, but he's too spineless to challenge Barry on it.) > the only reason she can think of for provoking the > laughter is someone being "mean." Unless, of course, it's really funny and *not* mean. It *challenges* > her that someone has poked fun at a belief, and > rather than take the adult route when so challenged > and either laugh along at the fun-poking or refute > it intellectually, she goes *almost every time* for > trying to demonize the comic. So wrong it's pathetic. The rest of this is Barry's usual crap, demonizing me in attempted retaliation for my having caught him out so many times in lies and self-contradiction and factual errors and illogic and hypocrisy. Oh, and also the fact that I find most of his attempts at humor to be so heavy-handed and labored that they amount to little more than bad burlesque. Come to think of it, that probably is what makes him angrier than anything else, because his whole self-image is wrapped up in his perception of himself as a super-sophisticated humorist. > I think that THE CORRECTOR has by far the > LAZIEST mind on this forum. Her responses are > predictable because by now *everyone* knows what > they will be. She will take the "low road" and > play "kill the messenger" rather than deal with > the challenge to the message EVERY TIME. > > Once caught doing it, she will deny that's what she > is doing forever, hoping to prolong the discussion > so that she can get in several more "strategic strikes" > against "the enemy" before everyone tires of the > argument. THAT is what is going on in this argument. > > Meanwhile Curtis is still in the same place he was > when he started the ball rolling -- having fun with > the exploration of ideas. He started by challenging > something that rarely gets challenged here, and he's > still doing it. And he's willing to discuss any aspect > of the thing he's challenging, with all comers, even > those whom most other posters have written off as too > loathsome in their tactics and too devoid of real > ideas to ever interact with again. Meanwhile THE > CORRECTOR just attacks. Over and over again, trying > to portray someone who did nothing more than challenge > a "privileged" idea for being "mean" by doing so. > > To turn THE CORRECTOR's own question around, is that > habitual behavior of hers really intellectual, or is > it just mean? > > I'm gonna go with The Simpsons as both intellectual > and funny, and with THE CORRECTOR as just mean, using > bluster and a junkyard-dog attack mentality to hide > the fact that she's an intellectual lightweight.
