Monday, April 13, 2015

Sandbox logic and the limits of discourse

Yeah, I know; and considering the source, for all I know it's Photoshopped.  
But if you read the article below, the one worth reading, this picture actually makes a kind of sense.  
Besides, is provocative, so there's that....

I am a creature of habit, which means I click over to Salon (having given up, finally, on clicking over to Baby Blue), where they daily run claptrap which draws fools like shit draws flies.  I know better.  But it's become a reflex.

Most of the foolishness centers on conflating Christianity with stupidity and all Muslims with ISIS.  A favorite trope, indeed, is how benighted and bloodthirsty and purely evil all Muslims are (and how much Christians want to shove religion down every Americans throat.  Not sure why that homosexual imagery is so pervasive and persistent, but there we are.).

And if you deny it, you just draw more attention from the peanut gallery, who engage in the sandbox logic of "IS TOO!"  "IS NOT!" about which wars were inspired by religion.  Apparently Hitler saw his quest for a Third Reich as a holy crusade, because "IS TOO!!",  and Stalin never killed anybody in the name of atheism, because "IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!!!!!!"

So this comes as a welcome relief, and a cool metaphorical glass of water.

I gotta clean my browser history....


  1. "Christians want to shove religion down every Americans throat. Not sure why that homosexual imagery is so pervasive and persistent, but there we are"

    Violently phallocentric imagery (not "homosexual", because for every throat w/ the aforementioned involuntarily shoved down it, on average more will be female than male).


    Good God, that Salon piece is idiotic. There's nothing more pathetic than these "Rationalism Uber Alles" types who are so blatantly irrational. The fallacies in it are just too numerous to list...

  2. JCF--I'll take your correction on my description, although it seems to be always men using the phrase, and it strikes me as the ultimate form of violence and personal humiliation (of course, it's pretty much meant that way if it's just phallocentric, isn't it?).

    And yeah, their definition of "reason" leaves a lot to be desired.

  3. what reading internet comments has taught me: there is a reasonably high number of people who are surprised, disappointed, angry and fearful that not everybody else out there is just like them- who also identify as liberals. it's sort of reassuring in the sense that people are more alike than they realize, but also unsettling that they can't/won't/don't see the similarities

  4. I read Tayler's screed too and some of the comments. I love how they seem to take it for granted that LGBT folk are not mostly Christians or religious, when most are, and that the majority of those polled as supporting equality are not Christians when the numbers couldn't possibly add up if that was not the case.

    Tayler sounds like the worst of 20th and 19th century bigotry, of the KKK, Know Nothing levels. The style of discourse is the same, it's merely the fashion for who get targeted that is different.