1. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159668 by Laurence on April 12, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Radesq: You're right, perhaps I was too harsh on the centrists and too quick to lump them together with the uninformed. Interestingly though, in practice these two groups often do get lumped together, in the following sense: if we administer a questionnaire in which the taker can answer agree/disagree/maybe to various economic and individual issues, one will most likely get similar answers from the centrists, who actually thought about the issues and genuinely want to take a middle-ground position, and the uninformed, who are, well, uninformed. Yet, both of them will be given the 'centrist' label, when in fact probably most of them belong to the uninformed camp!

2. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159614 by Laurence on April 12, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Radesq: I sometimes do hear libertarianism used in that way in mainstream media, and I'm not quite sure why. Literally, it just means supporting maximum freedom in both economic and individual matters.

The problem with the left-right divide in America is that it forces one to commit to two broad principles at the same time. The conservatives prefer a high degree of economic freedom but wants control over individual matters. They thus are often supporters of free trade, low taxes, deregulation, etc., but opposes gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, etc. Liberals, on the other hand, are the total opposite in both dimensions. They prefer big government taking care of the citizens but are very open when it comes to matters of private concerns. They thus tend to support quotas and subsides to protect domestic jobs, high taxes, trade unions, minimum wage, etc., but tend to also support gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, etc.

Libertarians favour both a high degree of economic freedom and a high degree of individual freedom. They thus tend to support both free trade, low taxes, deregulation, etc., and gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, etc. In other words, they are liberals when it comes to private matters but are conservatives when it comes to economic matters. They are often in an awkward position whenever election comes. Because they disagree (and agree) so much with both democrats and republicans, they are almost always swing voters. However, they 'swing' for a very different reason than the so-called centrists. Libertarians 'swing' because neither the democrats nor the republicans offer platforms that they largely agree with, while centrists 'swing' because they haven't thought about or made up their minds on most issues.

Of course, I'm speaking very broadly here. Obviously not every liberal/conservative/libertarian subscribes to the views I described above exactly, but hopefully you get the idea. :)

3. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159566 by Laurence on April 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I have almost always found Bill Maher insightful, witty, and quick on the draw in most debates. He does his homework, and therefore usually defends his positions quite well. Besides that he's absolutely hilarious. What is up with the hatred on the guy? It just doesn't add up. His show Real Time is the best discussion format on TV. Politicians. Actors. Writers. Activists. All uncensored. The guy is a one of a kind original and isn't scared to speak his mind or ask any question no matter how controversial. How can you not love this guy? Disagreeing with him on a topic is one thing, personal attacks are another. Drop the negative attitudes dudes. Dawkins was a delight on the show, as was Hitchens. I can't wait to see Ayaan. Great show Bill. Rock on!

Exactly, I can't understand why there are such fierce attacks on Bill Maher here. Sure his positions on some issues may be dubious, but many people would say the same for Hitchens and his support of the war, and yet we don't insult him to nearly the same extent as we do to Maher. Heck, as a libertarian there are tons of things I disagree with Maher (who is NOT a libertarian, as someone suggested previously, but a liberal), but nonetheless I watch his shows regularly as he hosts a decent panel discussion every week, and is the best at making fun of things like religion, Bush, Hollywood, etc.

4. Beware the Believers

Comment #152417 by Laurence on March 31, 2008 at 1:55 am

And let's not overanalyze the symbolisms (e.g., the 'significance' of the dollar sign, the grill, etc.).
These are simply common hip-hop gear:

Pimp outfit with dollar sign jewellery
Eminem in sleeveless shirt and baggy pants
Paul Wall wearing the grill
Bling bling jewellery
Underdressed women featuring in hip hop music video

The purpose of these is not to make a satirical point per se; they are simply part of the stereotypic outfit of 'gangsta rappers', which is what most people laugh at in this video (for reasons explained by Layla).

5. Beware the Believers

Comment #152412 by Laurence on March 31, 2008 at 1:41 am

Alright, let's for a moment not bother with interpreting the lyrics, but instead look at what is included.

Why devote most of the song talking about Democritus and Aristotle, unmoved mover being bad logic, Hume striking Paley, Huxley and Wilberforce, Darwin on the Beagle (and him throwing up on the ship!), Darrow and Bryan, Scopes, etc., if the video creator is on the creationist's side? What does that add to your creationist propaganda purpose? Does it not make much more sense to throw them all away and talk about Nazism, eugenics, and absence of transitional fossils?

6. Beware the Believers

Comment #152405 by Laurence on March 31, 2008 at 1:08 am

Laurence wrote: "These are the exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists, whether 'you' are a creationist or an evolutionist."

That's not what I said. Why would creationists want to caricature their own views? What I asked was how the exaggerations differ from a creationist caricature of scientists. As far as I can see, they don't.

"I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right?"

People are only going to pick up on that if they are already well informed about the debate. Good satire often mixes in a little authenticity alongside the exaggerations. It could even be intended to associate a few good ideas with the exaggerated caricature. People tend to respond to new ideas on an emotional level before they respond intellectually, so negative association can actually be an effective way of prejudicing people against sound rational arguments. I doubt if it's that deep, but whoever made this was undoubtedly very clever, so who knows?

Excuse me, I misread. Hmmm now that's an interesting question. Actually I think if I were a creationist caricaturing scientists I would do things differently. I would, as you say, mostly play on negative associations, so I'd do the big science, elitism, catching 'ID scientists' nonsense, just as in the video, but probably also throw in some Nazism and eugenics, some rubbish about there being no transitional fossils, etc. But I almost certainly won't waste my time incorporating references to Hume/Paley, Huxley/Wilberforce, Darwin on the Beagle, etc., stuff that mostly only atheists would be familiar with, and doesn't add anything to negative associations.

"I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right?"

People are only going to pick up on that if they are already well informed about the debate.

Well of course, satire doesn't work if the audience is not informed doesn't it. I doubt you would understand much of, say, The Colbert Report, if you're not well-informed about the things he talks about.

7. Beware the Believers

Comment #152391 by Laurence on March 30, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Laurence wrote: "These are exactly the sort of exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists."

How, if at all, do they differ from the sort of exaggerations you would expect creationists to use to caricature evolutionists?

No I don't think they would be different. These are the exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists, whether 'you' are a creationist or an evolutionist.

What I think gives away the video creator's identity is his/her references to the 'atheist literature'. I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right? At most he/she is neutral about the issue, but then again I doubt someone who had actually thought about the issue on such level can still remain on the fence.

8. Beware the Believers

Comment #152386 by Laurence on March 30, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Richard,

I genuinely do think this is a piece of satire, on the anti-creationist side. It parodies the creationists' portrayal of atheist scientists as elitist snobs expelling 'ID scientists'. This view is rooted in the anti-intellectual sentiments that abound in America, as noted by the cosmologist Sean Carroll:

What scientists tend to underestimate is the extent to which many people react viscerally against science just because it is science. Or, more generally, because it is seen as part of an effort on the part of elites to force their worldview on folks who are getting along just fine without all these fancy ideas, thank you very much.

The video thus caricatures this sentiment with great exaggeration. For example, the 'ID scientist' in the introduction and the older one at 2:47 were portrayed as victims, looking much more amiable than the other characters in the video. The Darwinist scientist at the beginning (with the diabolical mustache) is seen as engaging in some sort of conspiratorial scheme, ridiculously chasing down 'ID scientists' with a robot machine. The rapping Dawkins and company demonstrate extreme arrogance, chanting "he's still smarter than you, he's got a science degree", or "science is the only way to know y'all", etc. Clearly, they were being 'dicks'!

These are exactly the sort of exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists. Furthermore, the lyrical content (never mind the actual wording, it's rap) reveals a knowledge of atheism and the New Atheists that the creationists are unlikely to possess, including references to Democritus and Aristotle, unmoved mover being bad logic, Hume striking Paley, Huxley and Wilberfoce, Darwin on the Beagle (and him throwing up on the ship!), Darrow and Bryan, Scopes, the squid on PZ's hat, Christopher's cigeratte, etc. I think it is hard to know these things and be a creationist simultaneously. I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right?

These I think are the subtle satirical content in the video. Of course, what everybody immediately laughs at is the contradictory imagery of highly-educated scholars taking the role of 'gangsta rappers', who usually project themselves as the very opposite (though many of them are actually well-educated and intelligent). To portray the New Atheists as rappers, they show the hip-hop clothing, the baseball caps, the stereotypical pimp outfit, underdressed women (who are ubiquitous in hip-hop music videos), the diamond earrings, jewellery with the dollar sign (rappers are very fond of 'flossing', or showing off their wealth), and of course, the grill.

The hilariousness of the video thus comes from two sources: first and foremost the imagery of rapping professors with subtle hip-hop ornaments like the grill, and second the obvious exaggeration of arrogant, elitist scientists expelling those poor little 'ID scientists'. I confess I did laugh hard at this video, which I thought was much more clever than the pointless, stupid, and not-even-funny South Park episode.