Apathy doesn't work.

[AtheistCrusader]

This is how you deal with extremists. I don't believe for a second that many or even most religious followers would behave like the 'street preacher' meme. That's why I feel they are fair game for direct challenge. And as happened in Dusty's video, when other people, possibly even believers stepped up and joined him in rebuking the street preacher. It is not different from the Bystander Effect. A social phenomena that shatters the moment one person pierces that wall and engages the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

Challenge them. Good things happen.

[trotsky]

1. Don't be silly.

Anyone who challenges a believer is a militant atheist extremist, and we all know they are evil and horrible and what's wrong with the human race.

But now if an atheist says "I think religion is a sham" in public, now THAT'S something that needs to be shouted down.

[rug]

2. Why of course, that's exactly what Dusty is doing.

[Goblinmonger]

4. Why not go post the same thing

In response to a post in feminism or LGBT group?

Why would you think that is ok here?

[alp227]

5. post has been hidden, 6-1. nt

[Starboard Tack]

7. Interesting that you always make that challenge

Do you really equate atheism with feminism and LGBT issues?

It was an appropriate hide, btw. I have no issue with that.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. *snort*

There's someone else you should take that up with.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=148431

By the way, I did, and the conversation went exactly as I expected. Reasonable and calm discussion.
It is unfair for her to be smearing the Feminist groups like that.

"Just kidding. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even you. They would eat you alive….. and with reason"

That is a wildly unfair and vicious implication of the people inhabiting the various feminist groups. They are human beings too.

[Starboard Tack]

41. You should know better than to post this to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Why? Falls in the criteria of what you are complaining about.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that you had a blind spot for that post.

[Starboard Tack]

48. Feel free to have your conversations

I stay out of those sub-threads. Some around here think we work as a team. Well, we don't. I don't step on her conversations and she doesn't step on mine. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not so much. Regardless of any relevance to our conversation, do us both the courtesy of keeping things separate. Thanks.

[Goblinmonger]

33. In some ways, yes.

I am not saying that the issues are the same, that the way one becomes part of the group is the same, or that the things encountered are the same.

BUT, survey after survey indicates that atheists are on the bottom of the minority ladder. Least likely to be voted for, least likely to want your child to date/marry, least trusted. It goes on and on. In that regard, there are a lot of similarities and what is encountered is very similar. I know you have not experienced that, but far too many surveys show that it is a very real reality in the US.

[Starboard Tack]

47. So it's about surveys?

I am not saying that the issues are the same, that the way one becomes part of the group is the same, or that the things encountered are the same.

OK, but you are inferring that they are by issuing that challenge. I think it is unfair to the LGBT community to attempt to piggyback the woes of atheists on them.

Then you say

"
BUT, survey after survey indicates that atheists are on the bottom of the minority ladder."

Are you fucking serious? I admit the US is a very divided country along political, racial, religious and social lines, and where outspoken atheists are stigmatized to a degree.
But "the bottom of the minority ladder"? Really?
Try being an "illegal alien" or a "native American", or a Muslim, or homeless. Need I continue?
Polls are designed with parameters that suit the results. The true minorities don't even get included in the polls.
Yes, atheists should not be discriminated against and neither should any other class of people.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Like the guy on the street screaming about God is really looking for a fucking discussion...

"If you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you're going to HELL! Now, who would like to critique my beliefs in front of anyone and everyone who happens to be passing by?"

Such dishonesty.

[cbayer]

9. Obviously, he is looking for attention.

Why grant his wish?

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Because he'll keep standing there screaming at children all day, and the next day, and the day after

Just like the sacks of shit standing in front of the Planned Parenthood down the street. Ignoring them doesn't do shit.

[cbayer]

14. Neither does screaming back at them.

Are there no rules in your area about public harassment? There certainly are for those standing in front of Planned Parenthood.

And I am sure you are not going to argue that their free speech rights should be taken away.

So, go ahead and get into a screaming match with them. How that is going to keep him or someone like him from coming back the next day is not at all clear to me.

Frankly, if I saw this Dusty jerk screaming back at one of these guys, I would say something to him. He's much more obnoxious than the guy he's yelling at, and a really, really bad role model for kids.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. They are standing in public space.

Nothing we can do about them, except confront them.

I don't need to scream to make someone feel stupid and go away. Sometimes a soft voice is actually more effective.
(If you think Dusty was 'screaming', you haven't seen screaming.)

[cbayer]

20. Do whatever you want. I would avoid both the preacher and you.

But I'm not into making people feel stupid. Just not my style.

Oh, I've seen screaming, lots of it. I've never seen it accomplish much, though.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. "I've never seen it accomplish much, though."

I'm sure that has nothing to do with why you are attempting to mischaracterize it as screaming.

[Act_of_Reparation]

49. I don't think one debates solely for the benefit of one's opponent

A guy like that is unlikely to be persuaded away from his position... probably less so after spending a few hours screaming on a curbside. I don't disagree there.

On the other side of that coin, the guy screaming on the curbside probably didn't wake up thinking someone would actually think to challenge him. He obviously wasn't prepared for this exchange and walked away looking like a fool. Whether or not that registered with him, I can't say. But I'll bet it probably registered with a few of those people standing around watching. If that encourages them to speak out against religious zealotry, then the tactic worked.

[cbayer]

50. I would be concerned about someone who was screaming on the curbside, frankly.

There is the possibility that he is unwell and making him look like a fool might not be the best approach.

When you talk of speaking out against religious zealotry and then use as an example someone preaching on a street corner, where do you draw the line?

If there is someone recently fired from a big corporation who is out on the corner speaking loudly about what has happened to him, should he be stopped?

Or is it just when it's about religion?

I think this is a very slippery slope and continue to have difficulty seeing what the point is. The title of Dusty's piece is "How to annoy a street preacher", and I believe "annoy" is about all he is going to accomplish.

[Act_of_Reparation]

54. That's a risk, sure.

But I think it is mistake to assume the guy with the sandwich board ringing a bell has to be mentally ill. And I think you'd agree, there.

When you talk of speaking out against religious zealotry and then use as an example someone preaching on a street corner, where do you draw the line?

I don't really see that a line has to be drawn. You have the right to use the public forum to express your opinions, and anyone walking by has the right to challenge them.

If you're talking about me, personally, I confess I typically choose not to engage these people at all, whatever their message happens to be. But that's just my preference.

I think this is a very slippery slope and continue to have difficulty seeing what the point is. The title of Dusty's piece is "How to annoy a street preacher", and I believe "annoy" is about all he is going to accomplish.

Regarding this very specific example:

Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of Dusty... apart from his stunningly accurate assessment of the History Channel ("The History Channel is to history what Dr. Pepper is to medicine&quot . If atheism is your thing, there are fare more cerebral commentaries than his.

That said, I don't see anything particularly wrong with what he did here. A great many people find street preachers annoying; all Dusty did here was turn the tables on one in an ironic way. As it turns out, the guy screaming at strangers about God doesn't much enjoy it when a stranger starts screaming at him about God.

[cbayer]

55. I also tend to walk by, whether they are religious zealots or people with significant

psychiatric problems or just some really pissed off guy.

I have no interest in doing anything that might lend fuel to those fires. So if I can't help, I avoid.

Part of my objection has to do with my concern that some of these people may be ill. They are easy prey and I object to someone getting a notch in their belt by humiliating them.

I dislike Dusty and people like him in general. Loud mouthed bullies is all they are.

As I have said, I didn't watch the whole video. I have limited amount of internet and videos eat up a bunch of it. I watched some of it and decided I had seen enough.

I guess he won that round…. or did he?

[cbayer]

8. These two things are not related at all, imo.

Frankly, I could only watch Dusty for about 2 minutes. He is so hostile and so abrasive. I've never seen a street preacher that came even close to his obnoxiousness. Plus, as you know, I think he's 100% Poe.

The bystander effect is exactly when and why you should get involved. It has nothing to do with challenging someone, it's about reaching out when someone needs help. Walking by someone proselytizing on the street is not remotely like walking by someone writhing in pain on the street.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. "The bystander effect is exactly when and why you should get involved."

Hey you got it!

" It has nothing to do with challenging someone, it's about reaching out when someone needs help."

Or not.

[cbayer]

15. So you scream at the guy preaching on the street corner because he needs help?

What you and Dusty suggest should be done to the street preacher has absolutely nothing to do with the bystander effect.

Nothing.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Actually it was demonstrated in that video, where more people joined in.

People who were previously silent.

[cbayer]

18. I still don't think there is a correlation at all.

In the one instance, you are trying to shut someone down. In the other instance, you are trying to help someone who needs help.

I going to guess that you point is that if you start screaming at the preacher, then other people will start screaming at the preacher and the preacher will stop preaching.

I doubt that is going to happen, but I could see a huge brawl developing.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. There you go, deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying again.

Have fun today.

[cbayer]

21. There I go, responding to you in a way that you can't effectively challenge.

I'm having a great day. About to make a fabulous dinner that I have been working on all day.

Hope you have a good one.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Here's your one and only clue.

The only person suggesting that respondents would be screaming into this conversation, is you. I said challenge. More than once.

Challenge != Scream.

This is something you do a lot, assuming and ascribing the most negative possible connotation to what I said. Especially when it was completely outside the bounds of what I said. Same thing you did when I used the word 'delusion' in an explicitly non-clinical way.

You deflect, and smear. Oh, Dusty's a 'poe'. Bullshit. 'Oh he's too abrasive, I couldn't watch it'. Bullshit. 'Oh, you will scream back'. Bullshit.

Bother someone else with your deflection and smears. Tired of it.

[cbayer]

23. Clue? Oh, goody. I love that game.

Mr. Dusty in the video with the very loud voice, dramatic gesticulations and abusive language.

Did I get it?

This is something you do a lot - making my posts into some kind of attack on you when they are not.

If you are tired of it, which you indicated previously, then simply stop responding.

You can do it.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Dusty didn't scream at all. I thought you couldn't stomach more than 2 minutes anyway?

He hasn't even raised his voice 2 minutes in.

There is zero screaming by dusty in the entire video.

[cbayer]

29. I am going to respond here because I truly want to know what sets

you off in these exchanges.

Here is what I said:

In the one instance, you are trying to shut someone down. In the other instance, you are trying to help someone who needs help.

I going to guess that you point is that if you start screaming at the preacher, then other people will start screaming at the preacher and the preacher will stop preaching.

I doubt that is going to happen, but I could see a huge brawl developing.

Your response was that I was (once again) deliberately misconstruing what you had said. As I was deliberately careful to not put words in your mouth, but to express my opinion and then make a guess as to what I thought you might be saying, I am not clear on what you experienced as me deliberately misconstruing you.

If you want to help me understand it, please elaborate.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Because I never said scream at the preacher. I said confront.

Twice.

Dusty didn't scream at him either.


That's how you inject your mischaracterizations. You ascribe intent and means that I never said anything about.

[cbayer]

34. See, I see Dusty as screaming and you don't.

That's not intentionally misconstruing something or a mischaracterization of him. It's how I experience him. It's my opinion.

I ascribed no intent to you, I simply saw it differently.

When you say confront and use that particular video, I think you are endorsing what he is doing and I experience it as screaming. I didn't get through the whole thing, but he described what he was going to do, including not letting the other person speak at all. If he didn't do that, it just further cements my feeling that he is a blowhard and nothing more.

Let me ask you this. Would you let your child watch that Dusty video?

[AtheistCrusader]

35. He never once screamed at the preacher. You didn't even watch most of the video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screaming
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=screaming+%3f&qpvt=screaming+%3f&FORM=IGRE

[cbayer]

39. Are you going to respond to the rest of my post?

[AtheistCrusader]

40. What for?

You haven't yet addressed your attempt to willfully mischaracterize how dusty said what he did to the preacher, nor why you attempted to ascribe it to me as if it was my recommendation in post 15. So no, you got fucking work to do if you want to suddenly have reasonable discourse in which every point is addressed, after you pull that shit.

[cbayer]

44. Never mind. I am very familiar with your debating technique.

I don't have any fucking work to do at all and no more shit to pull, except to go put my dinner on the table.

Calm down. You are going to die young if you keep this up.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Unlikely. I'm about to go for a 10 mile run. I will be happy when I return.

Perhaps you could consider where and why this conversation went wrong in the meantime. I will reflect on my posts as well.

[cbayer]

46. I am glad you are going for a run and I hope it's a good one.

I may be back on after dinner. Perhaps we can talk then.

If not, I am sure we will talk another time.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Oh, another misconstrual.

"including not letting the other person speak at all."

The preacher speaks plenty. But wait, I thought you didn't even watch the whole video? So how do you know how much or how little he speaks?

[cbayer]

53. It's not a misconstrual.

It's what Dusty says in his introductory remarks.

You didn't answer my question about whether you would let your child watch this video. Personally, I wouldn't for the same reasons you give in this thread about protecting them from vicious scum.

BTW, I have a great deal of respect for what you have said in AA. It took a lot of thought and courage to post what you did. I don't expect it will change anything at all, but you are your own person and that is worthy of admiration.

[Starboard Tack]

10. What a piece of work this Dusty character is.

Talk about being tightly wound. The guy's like a fucking time bomb. Scary!
As much as I dislike "in your face" street evangelists, Dusty showed him what "obnoxious" really means. I never thought I would sympathize with a street preacher in a confrontation with an atheist, but I sure as hell do in this case. Dusty needs to do some serious chilling.

The second video, otoh, was very interesting and revealing. I don't see any direct relation to religion, apart from the obvious "Good Samaritan" theme. Context is important. I'd like to see the same experiment in a rural setting.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Yes, calling someone out when they were just screaming at passing children about burning in hell

is totally obnoxious.

I think you should re-examine your premise.


"The second video, otoh, was very interesting and revealing. I don't see any direct relation to religion, apart from the obvious "Good Samaritan" theme. Context is important. I'd like to see the same experiment in a rural setting."

I didn't say it had a direct relation to religion. It has to do with other people joining in and speaking up about something that they didn't rebuke initially, despite it being totally objectionable content, but once one person 'breaks the ice' so to speak, more people almost always step forward. It is in no way restricted to this situation.

[Starboard Tack]

27. I must 've missed that part where he was screaming at passing children

Maybe you have a different version. What I saw and heard was Dusty screaming through my headphones and then going to a conversation with a guy in the street, who hardly got to say a word. Where were these children?
Dusty is either an asshole or he's pretending to be an asshole. Either way, he is obnoxious beyond belief.

Second vid, as I said was very interesting, though I see no connection between it and this Dusty character.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. He demurrs that it's 'proclaiming loudly' when Dusty calls him out for yelling at women and children

You can see kids walking by with their parents through the entire video.

"then going to a conversation with a guy in the street, who hardly got to say a word."

First off, bullshit, they both speak plenty, and what do you think the level of two way communication was when the street preacher was ... 'proclaiming loudly', as he put it?

[Starboard Tack]

30. Must be a generational thing AC

Too much angry young man testosterone all round. Too much street circus. I don't like street preachers in general, but I walk on by when I see them. They have a right to speak. You guys call it the First Amendment. The rest of us call it "free speech". Your friend Dusty decided to get into it with him, which is Dusty's prerogative. Dusty ended up looking like a bigger asshole than the preaching guy. End of story.

If you took something positive from this fiasco, good for you. I didn't.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Yes, the street preachers have a right to speak. And so do we. And that includes calling them out

for their bullshit.

If it's a generational thing, I'm glad i'm of a more progressive generation that speaks up in the face of vile hatred.

[Starboard Tack]

36. "Vile hatred"? I don't see it like that

And didn't, even when I was young and confrontational in such situations. Any mention of hell and damnation makes me laugh. I taught my kid that Hell was not a scary place, but just another town in Michigan. No better or worse than any other place in America.

There are lots more important things to get bent out of shape about than freaks who preach in the street circus.

We marched for things like nuclear disarmament and gay rights and stopping the Vietnam War. We were beaten, arrested and killed for what we stood up for. So, don't try playing the "more progressive than thou" card when it comes to speaking up.
I was born during a war that was against "vile hatred". If you think standing up to this pathetic guy yelling in the street about hell and damnation, is in some way progressive, then I suggest you start watching the History Channel or spend some time in a library.

Dusty and his ilk, including the preacher guy, are nothing more than self obsessed wankers. They add nothing worthwhile to the human condition.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. You would tell a child that he is a sinner, and bound to burn in hell?

That's pretty hateful and vile.

Some jackwagon tries to do that to my kid and I see it, he or she is going to get an earful.
I protect my child from vicious scum.

Edit: To be clear that was a rhetorical question. I know you wouldn't do that.

[WCLinolVir]

26. I just consider these street preachers challenged, and/or under-medicated.

What do they do for money? I have to feel sorry for someone who sits out in public spouting fear based bs.

[Warpy]

51. My response is a little different

Occasionally somebody displays bad sense and worse manners and tells me I'm going to hell for one reason or another.

I immediately grab his/her hand and start pumping it up and down, saying "Gee, I hear god was dead, but I hadn't heard your got his job! Congratulations!" I overact, of course.

The reactions that gets are pretty funny. Mostly the mannerless clod wants to get away from the even crazier person (me) as fast as s/he can.

My hope is that other people stopped to think about who gets the final judgment in their religions, and because of that, how people who think they can send other people to hell are big, fat, frauds and worse.

[cbayer]

52. I think yours is a reasonable response.

What the person has said to you is offensive and out of line. You respond with some cutting, but humorous, comments.

You make your message clear without engaging in a useless debate.

It's the same technique that often works when someone is telling a racist joke or using the word "gay" as a perjorative.