Take a moment and read please

[lala_rawraw]

Over the last few days there has been much hate, anger, even violent language imposed on this msg board. People have the right to say what they will, of course and they also have a right to get a small group of pals together to make themselves seem important, despite the ugliness of their behavior. Whatever the motives, the issues, the concerns are of certain small group of people, they cannot take precedence over the matters that threaten all of us and in every way. All of us, despite our differences, have the same goal here (I hope) and the same respect for one another (I hope) that is required to get this nation through a crisis not seen since the Civil War.

We are all on the same side. We need not like one another, we need not want to talk to one another, but we all have to work together if we are to make it through this mess. You need not read my work, you need not like my work, you need not like the publication I work for. I don't mind, but to spend endless hours debating your personal opinion about a publication over the far more important things that have to be screamed, shouted, pushed into MSM, is surrendering your duty and your purpose to this: petty hate.


So the majority of us who understand that: a). we are all on the same side, b). that our country is in serious trouble, c). that we cannot afford to eat our own, must stop engaging and giving attention to people who wish to disrupt and divide, nothing more.

In the last few days, the tops posts should have been (not in any particular order)and just as some examples:

-Rice named in AIPAC case, incidentally on the same day that Mary McCarthy was outed and the MSM chased Mary, not Rice. That should have been pushed over and over to the top because we are talking about a sitting SOS embroiled in espionage allegations.

-Iran, the country we happen to now be in a covert war with at the moment, without any Congressional oversight and the prospect of a nuke attack hanging over our heads on a daily basis. So making noise to be heard in order to get Congress to stop this madness requires time and energy, which have both been waisted these last few days.

-Watergate (enough said, top of page)

-Rovegate (enough said, top of page)

-Andrea Clarke (not enough said!!!... top of page)

And there are obviously many more important stories than how much "so and so" hates "so and so". We are not in high school and this is not a popularity contest or at least it should not be. We have to support each other and we have to stand behind the few journalists we have left, there is no other way because we all lose, all of us.

So I simply ask that you consider what I have said. If you agree with it, great! Now get to work (please:)). If not, that is unfortunate, but we all have choices. Whatever happens, at least consider what a big booming voice made up of thousands of people could achieve, all demanding to have their country back, all in one momentous sound. Imagine being part of such a thing. I hope this reaches some of you, because we cannot afford to stand face to face as we are needed to stand shoulder to shoulder. That is all. Thanks for reading.

[TomInTib]

1. So very well put. The time is now to go active and not reactive.

We need to broadcast a message, not a massage.

[katinmn]

2. Well said, lala!

:) Thanks for all your hard work.

[Catrina]

3. I couldn't agree more ~ sometimes I wonder about the topics I see

here lately, mostly trivia compared to the huge issues that are not being covered by the MSM.

You're 100% right about the AIPAC story and Condoleeza Rice. I have not seen or heard a world about it, not even on AAR so far.

As far as the work Rawstory does, I think it's one of the best news sites on the Web and nothing anyone says will change my mind, which is why I stay out of those threads.

There are people who may not want to hear or read about these important stories. You have to wonder why ~

Thanks for all you do, and thanks to Rawstory also ~

[opiate69]

4. "We have to support each other "

If only your publication had heeded that advice.

[Strong Atheist]

41. You rock! rawstory sucks!

:yourock:

[Zhade]

62. Indeed!

NT!

[Book Lover]

121. Precisely

It's not a secret that Rawstory has limited resources. Why place those resources at the disposal of a writer who does not produce copy based on the actual news?

[lala_rawraw]

124. because she is a columnist, gets no pay, and uses no resources

she is not a news writer, how many ways does this need to be said?

[nofurylike]

5. "we cannot afford to eat our own" yes. so why did rawstory betray us, eat

us, publishing that anti-atheist screed?

why couldn't you just have the decency to apologize for that, before you lecture us on unity? that piece shattered rawstory's implied unity with US! NOT the other way around!

i saw nothing written by you on that intensely devisive editorial! and i have ALWAYS admired you, and supported you, and appreciated rawstory.

clearly you do not respect me and others, atheists, here, enough to bother apologizing!

just sayin. you brought it up.


peace

[lala_rawraw]

8. Then you have not been reading my comments... go back and read

My comments to all of those threads. No one betrayed you, that is the point. Please don't take this thread out for a ride to use in the very thing that I am saying needs to stop. You have plenty of threads on the topic, let mine be please. Again, you can read my comments regarding that matter.

[nofurylike]

13. i do not have time to read all the threads. are you saying that one of

them has an apology from you?
it is appropriate to take into THIS thread, because you lecture us in it, while you do NOT apologize, or even acknowledge that rawstory was the one eating its own.

"No one betrayed you, that is the point."
that is not for you to say. i certainly was betrayed.


peace

[Zhade]

63. Considering that RS insulted and lied to people who took offense...

...the OP rings hollow.

Raw Story will not receive my clicks. My friends will all be informed of this, and knowing them, THEY won't visit either.

I'm encouraging a boycott of threads that use Raw Story as a primary source.

Raw Story really should have reconsidered running a hack hate piece. This is going to hurt them, and it should.

[lala_rawraw]

85. If you were insulted by a columnist...

Then that is one thing. But to say that Raw Story lies, implies that you are able to locate an article that is not factual. I suggest you run along and find an example, otherwise, your smears ring hollow to anyone who reads my work. Raw Story won't be hurt because you and your little friends decided to rewrite the columnists words, present them as her own, spread them all over the Web, and then attack, defame, and send hate mail. That kind of stuff we get from the right wing quite a bit and it never hurt us. We sometimes get it from those pretending to be from the left, has never hurt us. If we had done something unethical, anyone who knows me, knows I would have resigned. So unless you can prove where I have lied in my work (and I assume you know the difference between a column and an article), or any other reporter at Raw Story has lied in their work, then - I repeat - it is you who rings hollow in your smearing of good people because your feelings were hurt by a column (that you and yours distorted to begin with). Feel free to boycott Raw Story and I am sure you will have the few who need a reason to keep on hating and attacking. Again, smears and attacks (similar to the right wing by the way) will not discredit those who have earned respect and really, my work stands on its own. Good luck on your crusade, you have certainly found a worthy cause to devote this much time and energy to. Amazing.

[Zenlitened]

96. Wow. This "you and your little friends" tone really is a turn-off.

And "...get a small group of pals together to make themselves seem important.."

And "... the few who need a reason to keep on hating and attacking..."

Does it trouble you that there might be large numbers of people who think Rawstory screwed up big-time, and has only compounded its errors in the days since the column appeared?

Is that why you need to further marginalize the critics, by insisting that they are so few?

I have to say, if you started this thread in an effort to mend diplomatic relations in some sense, your ambassadorship hasn't been very impressive. Who'd you take lessons from, John Bolton?

[lala_rawraw]

107. No, I started this thread in good faith

But what has become clear is that you and others are not interested in good faith and that was my mistake. I assumed we could have a discussion about this (not here even, but in my original postings trying to correct the misrepresentation of what was being said as well as commenting on the column, as I did not agree with it). I had hoped that once clarified and once discussed, this would not be what it has been made out to be. But what I see now is that the people doing this, that is to say, those attacking Raw Story, Truth out, me Jason, Will... these people, have posted distorted and even altered versions of the authors text. Agree with it or not, at least know what it is that you are agreeing or disagreeing with. The folks who posted this all over the place in its altered form started out in dishonesty, so it was my mistake to think that they would address anything in good faith. They then went on to issue threats and send hate mail, spam RS, make personal attacks against me, as though I had written the column or was even the editor on that side, and even though I myself did not agree with the columnist. They then harassed and smeared anyone associated with Raw Story. The columnist responded with an apology, attempting to clarify her words. Again, she was attacked, and again her words were distorted. So her editor, Avery, issued an angry response to these folks, and now they post that response - not the columnists original article, not her apology, not the context in which Avery's response was written - just his response. Then you come in, you read what they wrote, and you assume you know what happened.

So you are right that I made a mistake in posting this, but not for the reasons you suggest. I made a mistake in attempting to distance the trolls and have a serious and civil discussion with everyone else where we could clarify and address some of the other things going on... but I would like to ask you, why you think it is okay that these people you are defending (and since they are posting at DU, I cannot name them, but you know who they are) are in the right, not only in their reaction to the column, but more importantly, to how they presented the column? Why are you defending them? Do you really agree with these tactics that smack more of the Rove camp than of any progressive?

In addition, I have just noticed the about.com reprint of the column and you know what? It also omits and distorts the authors original words. So something is very wrong here, don't you think? Don't you think we should first start discussion (in a civil way) about the original column not about someone's "fixing" of the column? Do you think that is a fair way to start? Were you familiar with this chain of events when you posted your comment? If not, then please take a good look. If you were, then clearly there is nothing left to address here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. Was the following sentence meant to apply to both Raw Story and

the complaining atheists?

"People have the right to say what they will, of course and they also have a right to get a small group of pals together to make themselves seem important, despite the ugliness of their behavior."

If you were saying that both Melinda Barton and Avery Walker, and those who complained about the column, formed their own small groups with ugly behaviour, then I can accept you meant this thread in good faith. We'll put it all down to worries about getting extra Democratic votes in the November elections, and writing without thinking through the consequences. If you meant that the only ugly behaviour came from those who complained (and I think that is the way most of us have taken your opening post), then I can't see the good faith in starting the thread. If we misread you by assuming you were referring to just us, rather than to the columinst and editor as well, then I'm sorry.

[Strong Atheist]

111. Nah, I am sure she is talking about us atheists here at D.U.

who are standing up against the bigotry and hatred of melinda barton and rawstory.

[Zenlitened]

127. Re: "the authors original words. "

Do we even know what the "original" words were, anymore? There appear to have have been so many redactions, retractions, alterations and who knows what else related to this story, it's getting hard to follow which version of what is where anymore.

Many of the people you say are posting a "distorted form" of the original contend that the version they're referencing has been "cleaned up," and that the document you reference now is not the original at all. One, in the Comments area, even quotes the author herself as saying, "Reprise My editor over at Raw Story, the very talented Avery Walker, asked for a few changes to my piece on secular extremism. I've chosen to post the new, revised, and hopefully superior version here. I hope it makes more sense to any who may have been confused by the earlier version." Question: Is that true?

As for talk of "good faith," I think you're on shaky ground there, frankly. As others have pointed out, if it is Rawstory's goal to focus on major issues of the day, and not on topics that cause division, why even publish that amateurish rant of a column, with its muddled definitions and strained arguments, in the first place? Question: Have you addressed that point yet? Because it seriously undermines your protestation now that you seek only solidarity and focus.

That's where "good faith" broke down. And it was further undermined by the tone of your OP, painting your critics as "a small group of pals" working together "to make themselves seem important." And later joining in insinuating that the criticism is the work of trolls.

That's hardly any way to appeal for reconciliation, when in fact there seem to be great numbers of people -- atheists and religious alike -- who found the piece objectionable, the author's weak apology notwithstanding. (Although I'm not certain "You all read it wrong" rises to the level of apology. Question: Is there a link to the apology you reference? I was able to find only a few scattered statements, but there may be something I've not seen.

Bottom line, Rawstory published junk, then reacted with hostility, assailing the critics who complained. You could have salvaged the situation right off the bat by clearly -- and without defensiveness -- acknowledging that Rawstory failed to meet its own editorial standards in this case, and saying simply "We're sorry."

Perhaps there's still time.

[Der Blaue Engel]

6. There seems to be a trend here

First liveoaktx, who provided timely and important video clips is chased off by <fill in your term of choice>.

Now people are spending hours kicking RawStory in the teeth.

Some things speak for themselves.

[Strong Atheist]

51. Nah, that HATE SITE rawstory chose to kick us in the teeth, not

just once, but several times in a row!

Boycott rawstory!

[Roland99]

114. Exactly.Can't convince me freepers-in-disguise are on a path of disruption

here at DU.

[Solon]

7. So where is the fucking olive branch? Its your move.

[lala_rawraw]

10. I am not the columnist, nor am I her editor

However, she did apologize and was brow beaten into the ground. Not sure what you mean, but I ask again - with respect - that you please not use this thread for the purposes of starting an argument. There are plenty of threads already on the topic you speak of, and you can post there if you need to continue. I am not going to recount every distortion made by certain people, recount the apology and clarification made by the columnist, not the ugly "die bitch" attack mail we have gotten. All of that is posted and there for you to read. So you had your apology a while back. Not sure why I need to apologize, but then again, none of you have yet to apologize. So it is frankly your move. And by the way, I spent my entire teenage years hanging out with my Wiccan neighbors, as a side note, not related to the arguments. I just noticed your sign, so I thought you may be Wiccan.

[Strong Atheist]

33. You mean this apology?

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

ROFLMAO!

[Zhade]

64. Well, since the hack equates secular with atheist...

...it's not a surprise that a confirmed non-apology would be considered an apology!

[godhatesrepublicans]

9. Good point, although who has the time for flame wars anyway?

I hadn't even noticed any going on to be honest.

[lala_rawraw]

86. Apparently they do

They have so much time that they have run bunches of post, spammed RS comments section, sent loads of hate mail, etc. They really have found a cause worth fighting for, eh? Pathetic. Thanks for your support:)

[hwmnbn]

11. One of the reasons I read you .......

is precisely because of this attitude you just expressed. We are in this together and we will sink or swim together.

I always enjoy spirited debate if the purpose is to get at the truth. If debate is used to further personal agendas, it's a waste of everyone's time and energy, our most valuable resources.

My bottom line is if I can't add insight or information, at least I can be cool enough to just listen to those who can.

[flyarm]

12. thank you , thank you!! i have stayed off most of the posts where

this was occuring..because unless we all keep our eye on the ball..the ball will get away from us!!

there is too much work to be done to waste time on bickering!

and there is sooooo much crap coming out that we have all worked so hard to get exposed for almost 5 years..to take our eyes off that is not only silly..its a waste of precious time...'

thank you for this post LALARaw..it indeed needed to be said!

fly

[oxbow]

14. It wouldn't surprise me if trolls & freepers were behind some of this

Just when it seems like we can come together to take advantage of the GOP's spectacular incompetence and greed, people start squabbling over this petty ego shit. Of course, even if freepers are agitating this into more than it really is, it is people on this side who are still falling for it and attacking each other needlessly.

as I said somewhere else, If Democrats insist on eating their own over every editorial indiscretion and minor thing that, in the long run, makes little difference to the big picture, then we will never win the Congress back. We need to band together as never before in order to snatch a victory here, as the GOP has stacked ALL THE BOOKS against us. Raw Story serves a valuable function as part of our communication machine, and I've used it more times than I can remember. So thank you, Lala and all the RawStory crew for all that you do.

[Goblinmonger]

28. I don't thing Raw Story appreciates being called trolls & freepers

I mean, really, it is their fault. There are SO many more important things out there. Why did they publish an editorial about something so insignificant? They must be trolls and freepers. "So thank you, Lala and all the RawStory crew for all that you do" to give fuel to the trolls and freepers. Way to take your eye off the ball and drag us into this quagmire of shooting our own (liberal atheists) in the foot.

[oxbow]

32. The offending columnist apologized and was reprimanded

That means that it falls on the people who took offense to be the big men/women, act like adults and move on now. We can't hold mistakes over people's heads till the end of time. We process our feelings, forgive when we are able to and let go of the people who hurt us. We can't act like Israelis and Palestinians, taking the original offense and milking it indefinitely.

Seriously, if you ARE an atheist, then you know how precious life is. Any of us could be dead tomorrow, and we would have spent our last days arguing and worrying over petty shit like this?! Just let it go...let yourself get back to enjoying life and fighting the good fight.

[Goblinmonger]

56. You mean this reprimand

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

Stunning!!

[Zhade]

65. Look DIRECTLY below you. There WAS no apology.

There were insults, dodging responsibility, and lies.

[lala_rawraw]

55. I will pass on your msg

Thanks for the kind words. And yes, a few of them are trolls, but the few libs who are running with them don't realize just how they are being used. Eh, I tried. They did the same thing to Andy, to all sorts of people, nothing new here. The only surprise is that one of them I did have a great deal of respect for and it appears I was very wrong in that regard.

And here I thought it was only the far right that attacked people with lies and smears in order to make their point. It is sad to see this happen because it makes those who are real atheists look bad. It also makes journos in the free press less interested in taking up important issues like differing views with regard to god or lack there of, because there will always be those who exploit something that sensitive for their own purposes and they will make an entire movement look bad. I remember not really knowing much about Evangelical Christianity until the 2000 election and then my only frame of reference were the Dobsons and their ilk, which is not fair or true really. But what I am saying is that if you have never been exposed to a particular point of view and then your first exposure is a distorted representation of that point of view, then you are less likely to look further. That is what makes me sad. My almost ex is an atheist and I showed him all of this. He was not pleased. He did not agree with the columnist and neither did I, but he was really offended more with the behavior of those claiming to represent his point of view. He is a full on science guy and God is theory to him. He does not attack those of faith, he simply presents his argument and lets it be. He was fairly offended at the level of violence from the people posting this stuff and the emails they sent. He even suggested that they were all trolls, but as I know at least one of them and he is a lib for sure, it is clearly not the doing of trolls only. Anyway, he was offended and I am sure many are as well. I had hoped that putting up this thread might make all sides who are here in good faith (that is to say, not trolls) put aside their reactions for a bit, cool off, and revisit the discussion when they have had some distance. In the mean time we have work to do, which is something I said in my post. But it appears that whatever some of these people are, trolls or otherwise, they have no intention or interest in civility of any sort. Again, it is sad to see atheists being represented by such ugly behavior and I hope someone who is an atheist here at DU posts an explanation of atheism to those outsiders that may not understand the concept and mistake these actions as somehow representative of what atheism is. In fact, I wish someone would do that. Because to an outsider, this must look like Dobson did to me, that is, representing a whole point of view and we know that is not true. Anyway, thanks much.:)

[Goblinmonger]

57. Yeah, that's right

My indignation at the bigotry is just a result of me not being smart enough to realize that freeper trolls are guiding me by the nose ring. Not only am I a whackjob, I'm a stupid whackjob now. You just keep getting better and better and better at disenfranchizing the progressive atheists. You must really want us out of the party pretty badly.

Or am I actually one of the freeper and trolls?

Oh, and now we are REAL atheists? That's funny. See WE don't take a page out of the NO TRUE CHRISTIAN handbook.

Well, if your atheist significant other thinks it, that seals it. I'm wrong.

Guess what? If you poke an alligator with a stick enough times that it bites you, it wasn't the alligator's fault.

[Strong Atheist]

73. "And here I thought it was only the far right that

attacked people with lies and smears"

Yeah, turns out rawstory does the same thing.

It is sad to see this happen because it makes those who are real atheists look bad.

Oh yeah,

beam me up scottie, and

BuffyTheFundieSlayer, and

Evoman, and

Goblinmonger, and

onager, and

Random_Australian, and

salvorhardin, and

trotsky, and

Zhade, and I and all the others are not REAL ATHEISTS:eyes:

And yes, a few of them are trolls

Oh, yeah, we are all trolls as well

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[SidDithers]

58. Freepers and trolls?...

Is that what you really think?

Sid

[oxbow]

69. Maybe it's what I hope...

I mean, I've read the article, and while it is meanspirited, it's clear that the author isn't talking about all atheists, only the more militant ones. I'm reminded of the man who went to the Supreme Court to have "under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance, for instance. I wasn't reminded of any atheists I know by her characterization. They are all people who can see many sides of any argument, and just think that the atheist viewpoint is the most logical one.

I guess I just can't see why this article is such a big deal. Even if she WAS talking about you, why does what some unknown writer think mean so much? Does it mean that we are going to treat you differently? Does it change who you are? As Chuang-Tsu wrote about the man of virtue:

"Though the world might praise him and say he had really found something, he would look unconcerned and never turn his head; though the world might condemn him and say he had lost something, he would look serene and pay no heed. The praise and blame of the world are no loss or gain to him. He may be called a man of Complete Virtue"

As for the apology, Lala_rawraw says that the author apologized. I was going by that, but maybe she hasn't apologized publicly yet? I don't know...if she hasn't though maybe she should. Whatever helps DU put all this behind us!

[Strong Atheist]

71. It went beyond the bigoted, hate filled author, who did by the way

indeed say ALL atheists are whackjobs:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.

rawstory is responsible for this shit; they chose to publish this HATE SPEECH deliberately, and then made it much MUCH worse by publishing a HATE FILLED EDITORIAL, which they have also never apologized for:

*******************************************************************
To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

********************************************************************

rawstory is a HATE MONGERING SITE.

read the excellent analysis by Austin Cline:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257416.htm

[oxbow]

72. "The whackjob is a special sort of atheist"

A few quotes from the offending article:

"The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter."

"Both atheism and theism contain elements of rational thought and reason."

While there are contradictions and several logical fallacies in the piece, I don't think she was consciously trying to paint all atheists with the whackjob brush.

As for the apology, I think you are owed one, and thought it had already been given.

[Strong Atheist]

74. rawstory

PROMOTES HATE SPEECH, and has made no apology, quite the opposite:

*******************************************************************
To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

Did you even read:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257416.htm

this, in that short amount of time?

rawstory is a piece-of-shit HATE PROMOTING SITE BOYCOTT rawstory!

[oxbow]

75. I read it before

and yes, she doesn't provide meaningful examples of atheists doing what she says. And yes, she doesn't understand what atheism (or agnosticism) is about in any meaningful way. It's a poorly written editorial, as I said earlier.

However,it is not hate speech. She doesn't want to take away your 1st amendment rights, or to make you wear a special uniform, or anything like that. She's just one ignorant person who wrote a bad article and probably should have had someone (preferably an atheist) read it before it was posted. This article would have just sunk into the memory hole if we didn't make such a big deal about it. Now most of DU has read it, and it's taking up valuable time and energy that could be used to save this fucking country.

We don't have many news sites that are willing to stand up and tell the truth in the USA. Is Raw Story perfect? no. Do they need to acknowledge when they've made a mistake? Heck yes! 8)

But do we also need to keep the big picture in mind here? I think so. In a few months, the anger at Raw Story will fade. But the Bush administration and the damage in Iraq and New Orleans and to the environment will still be here. Raw Story needs to apologize, the people who had their feelings hurt need to accept it, and we need to squash the drama once and for all.

[Strong Atheist]

76. Well, we agree on this part:

Raw Story needs to apologize

AFTER that, we will see about:

In a few months, the anger at Raw Story will fade.

[Zenlitened]

88. That's a terrific rebuttal from About.com. Thanks for posting the link!

:hi:

A long piece, but very much worth reading.

I might bicker with the author, Austin Cline, on a few points, but overall he lays out a very well-thought-out explanation as to why this whole Rawstory thing has been such a clusterfuck.

Barton wrote in her column: In modern America, secular extremists as a group don’t have the wealth, influence, numbers or power to affect the way most of us live our lives. However, we should learn from what has happened elsewhere and be prepared to meet them if or when they do.

Cline writes:

Translation: even though my article was all about the “important” duty of cleaning the “whackjobs” out of “our attic,” the truth is that they are completely irrelevant and have no real influence on anyone’s lives. Still, they’re vile creatures so we shouldn’t hesitate to attack them at every opportunity and make sure that they don’t get any actual influence like us moral religious believers.

He notes that Barton's statement sounds a lot like the Christian Right's rants against atheism and humanism.

People like to point out that extremists on either side of the political spectrum tend to converge at the same place eventually, so similar do their attitudes and methods become. And that's probably true in some regard.

But it's also an uncomfortable truth that some purportedly progressive religious people have more in common with their co-religionists on the right than they'd like to admit.

Cline writes:

...here we have yet another religious liberal who is so upset at the existence of irreligious and atheistic liberals that she considers them a “threat” to liberal politics overall. The exact same words could be written about feminists, gays, blacks... indeed, much the same words have been written about those minorities.

Minority groups have often been attacked as “extremists” because they challenge the status quo and refuse to accept traditional wisdom about how society, government, and social relationships should be structured (usually because those structures privilege certain groups over others — the ones in the minority, of course). In the case of atheists, it appears that they are attacked because they represent the specter of doubt — doubt in and skepticism of traditional belief in a benign deity who made everything for a purpose and will make sure that everything turns out OK.

The usual response to such minorities is to tell them to just sit down and shut up; but nothing was ever changed by people who refused to stand up for their rights and who refused to speak up for their equality. Bigots have to portray minorities as extremists because if they actually had to confront minorities’ demands, they might have to produce arguments for what they are doing and why — but they know they can’t...

Reposting the link:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257416.htm

And bookmarking atheist.about.com. The About.com site as whole has really matured since I last looked it over 'way back when. :)

[Strong Atheist]

95. You are welcome! rawstory sucks!

:toast:

[lala_rawraw]

87. She has... but once again, they have distorted it...

Instead of presenting what she wrote, they show the column editor's response as proof that she did not apologize. I think they must be getting paid to put this much work into distorting and lying, because honestly, why all of the manipulation. If there is something that is visible, then list it as is. Instead, they took her article, rewrote parts of it, so that SOME became ALL and started a hysteria. They then claimed it was an article when in fact it was a column. The columnist even apologize for not being clear enough and again restated SOME vs. ALL and they attacked her again. And now, when I say she apologized, they produce the editor's note, not the writers apology. I mean really, why so much effort to discredit someone? What are your thoughts?

[oxbow]

110. In the end, Lala, the best of apologies won't dissipate the anger...

unless those who are angry are truly ready to let go. It has been my experience that forgiving an offense is possible at any time. An apology provides an opportunity to practice this choice, but it is not necessary in order to forgive someone. We forgive when we are tired of blaming and holding someone in our thoughts all the time. We forgive when we are ready to just move on. It is a choice, not a natural progression.

I'm glad an apology was offered, and hope it will be accepted in the spirit it was given. Best wishes to everyone at RawStory, and our fellow DU'ers too.
:grouphug:

[SidDithers]

120. Getting paid to distort?...OMG...

lala, you should maybe start spending more time in the 9/11 forum, for you seem to see a conspiracy around every corner. Trolls, paid disruptors, a small group of pals distracting from the important messages?

Several posters here have pointed out that your OP "olive branch" was belittling and insulting, and yet you've ignored those posts and instead continued to malign and mischaracterize our valid concerns about the article and the Raw Story non-response. Your many posts in this thread have made it abundantly clear where you stand. Good luck with Raw Story, I hope at some time you're able to reacapture some of the readers that you've lost through this episode. Sadly, I won't be one of them.

Sid

[Laurab]

15. Very well said

Thanks for writing!

K & R

[beam me up scottie]

16. Not buying it.

What you're selling, that is.

But then, you're not looking for my money, are you?



I'm sure your advertisers are extremely pleased with the performance this week.



Who are you going to sell next time your rag is in trouble?





Ka ching.

[Strong Atheist]

49. You rock! rawstory SUCKS!

:yourock:

[lala_rawraw]

84. Unlike you

I use my real name and attempt to do work that sometimes puts me out on a limb. You have yet to provide one example of an article that I wrote that was not correct or was seen as inaccurate. I do not make that much money, in fact, hardly any money. But again, since you think that I am selling myself in some way or that my work is in some way inaccurate, I look forward to your examples. You need not read my work, I really don't mind. In fact, please don't read my work as you might confuse Iran and Iraq the way you seemed to have conflated SOME and ALL. If you are going to attack my credibility, I suggest you back it up because people at DU like facts and they dislike ego driven stalkers. Of this I am sure. So provide the examples or stop your nonsense.

[Tigress DEM]

17. I missed all the gossip. Who hates who?

Nevermind. Gotta go to bed.

Was up too late on the Andrea Clark thing last night.

[Strong Atheist]

34. Here:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

and the "apology":

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

[salvorhardin]

47. Here's Austin Cline's analysis

Here's Austin Cline's analysis of Avery Walker's inappropriately hostile comments:

Update: What’s Up With Avery?

Editor Avery Walker really seems to be upset. First, he drastically edited this signed editor’s note without actually noting that fact, thus giving the impression that his “note” was always short. I’d say “shame on you, Avery” for editing history like that, but it pales in comparison to what Avery wrote in the comments attached to the essay:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people.

Avery Walker says that it’s not an attack on all or most atheists generally, but he doesn’t address the arguments about how it does do so. Basically, I’ve supported my position (a position shared by others, naturally, and I’m not the only one arguing this) and Avery is rejecting that without offering a counter-argument of his own.

This is key: Avery insists that everyone else is completely wrong in how they have interpreted Barton's piece, but he can't seem to explain how or why they are wrong. Instead, he merely asserts they are wrong. Since he also complains about how awfully everyone else has argued, it might be reasonable to think that this "argument by assertion" is an example of what Avery believes qualifies as a good argument.

Isn’t it interesting, though, that the essay is flawed enough to remove the link from the front page, but not flawed enough to offer any sort of apology over. I wonder just how bad and how flawed an essay has to be before editors like Walker will admit to having erred in approving them?

It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry.

For it to be a valid attack on logical flaws, it would have to be an attack on an identifiable and relevant group of people. I and others have pointed out why that's not so; Avery simply asserts they are wrong without supporting his claim. Avery Walker is not being very credible here because he refuses to explain how and why Barton's piece can be read as an attack on only a small sub-group of atheists.

Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram.

I’ve never heard of a vin diagram. I do, however, know a great deal about Venn Diagrams. Because I know about Venn Diagrams, I also know that they aren’t particularly relevant here unless Avery Walker refuses to explain how Barton’s piece really only refers to a small sub-group of atheists.

As for the repeated claim that she’s using nothing more than straw men, well, that’s also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all).

Avery Walker couldn’t be more wrong here. First, Barton claimed that there are 5 “outrageous” arguments. Four examples for five arguments doesn’t cut it. Second, one written example is the Australian group — but since the context of her article is America, the opinions of Australian atheists aren’t very relevant. Third, anecdotal evidence isn’t adequate because she is calling for the marginalization of a group of people and you can’t legitimately do that on the basis of a single piece of personal experience. Finally, he completely ignores the question of whether the claims in question really are “outrageous” in the first place. Would Avery Walker accept an “opinion column” on “black extremists” based upon the above “examples”? I hope not — but he will do it when it comes to atheists.

This particular point is important because even if we ignore Barton’s straw men (yes, Avery, making up incorrect definitions of “secular” and “atheists” means that your are also making up straw men — you can’t wiggle out of that) and false generalizations, the absence of serious examples for all five of points was a serious error. Even if we pretend that her overall arguments and conclusions were true, the piece never should have been published without sound supporting evidence. Barton erred in not providing that, but Avery Walker also erred very seriously in not requiring this evidence before publishing.

However, Avery Walker has made it unambiguously clear that he won’t be apologizing to anyone for this lapse in editorial standards.

Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That’s absurd.

What’s “absurd” is that Avery Walker imagines that Melinda Barton really “documented” her arguments. If Barton’s essay is what passed for “documented arguments” on Raw Story, you can’t trust anything you read there.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don’t match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story’s readership.

Pay very close attention to this: Avery Walker is not saying that some blogs are misquoting Melinda Barton. This comment requires, I think, that we assume that all the blogs referring people to Raw Story are misquoting Melinda Barton. In such a case, Avery Walker is claiming that I, here in this post, am misquoting Melinda Barton — a very serious accusation which Walker would defend if he were a decent and ethical editor.

Instead, he refuses to name names — and while it’s fair to not want to give advertising or attention to people who have annoyed you, it’s not fair to make very serious ethical accusations without backing them up. In my opinion, Avery Walker appears to be guilty of behaving as unethically as what he is accusing others of being.

Note that Avery Walker’s “explanation” for why he edited his original note doesn’t add up: he never named names, so when he made his accusation above the article he wasn’t giving anyone any attention or advertising. Why, then, would he pull that original accusation in order to avoid giving anyone any attention or advertising? Since this “explanation” rings false, I have to question his general explanation for not naming names at all.

I must thank Avery Walker for posting all of this, though, because I believe that it provides a great deal of food for thought on just how and why Melinda Barton’s original piece was published. With people like Walker in charge, I think we can expect more such bigotry and hit-pieces from Raw Story in the future. I just wonder which minority will be targeted next.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257416.htm

[lala_rawraw]

104. holy shite, no wonder... he altered the text...

is this where everyone got the column from, about.com? not from the original? because he altered and omitted key words... I am writing him right now and his editors... if this is where you guys got your column from, then no wonder there is confusion... and of course they work for NYT... wow. Okay, read the original if you get a chance please... that might actually provide some clarification.

you can call about.com via NYT here: [phone] and ask them to issue a correction and post the original text. then have your debate. wow, i am stunned.

[Der Blaue Engel]

60. Thank you for the link...I now see the Much Ado About Nothing

I am an athiest, and while I disagree with much of the editorial, my panties aren't in a wad over it.

RawStory has nothing to apologize for.

[lala_rawraw]

91. my husband

is an atheist and he too was shocked at this gang attack. he thinks their are other motives at play, i was simply hoping to reason with them. apparently he was right and I was wrong. thanks much Der:)

[Tigress DEM]

116. Bound to cause controversy, but a good piece.

I too have known many people who have various degrees of problems with Religion in general and it's misuse by those in power has made this a fireball too hot to handle adequately in most instances.

The main point I see is pure and simple. What makes those who are not considered by fundamental religions as "believers" legitimately angry (in my opinion) is that the mainstream religious message has been consistently accepted and the choice to believe differently is labeled as wrong in this time and place in history. It is what someone who doesn't wish to sign onto a mainstream religion deals with in subtle and not so subtle ways daily.

Jesus specifically taught tolerance and told his disciples to basically "can it" when they wanted Him to arbitrate who was "right" or "more worthy" and He went out of His way to show that those who would lead by example should strive NEVER to Lord themselves above others.

So Christians who use the Bible to beat others up are a waste of the message and a damage to the Christian community in my estimation.

However, as much as I understand how awful it is to be oppressed in this way, I still agree with the author of the article that the extremist behavior that looks so much like the same extreme behavior of the other side that it could be a mirror image is still extreme and hurts our cause.

As a Christian, I am more for calling the Christians on the carpet for their behavior and in looking for the middle ground where everyone respects everyone's belief systems - whether they are Christian or Atheist or Agnostic et al...

None of us have all the answers and we can each take facts and apply unique meanings to them that make sense to us and help us live our lives with a measure of sanity, but no one has the right in America to make someone else practice a belief system that is not of that person's own making. Even children who are shown one path can choose another when they are grown.

And that is how it should be. I understand with the proximity of the threat to take us back into a time when religion persecuted and got away with it that those who would be strung up or burned are freaking out right now. I am too.

It is as freaky for a Christian who understands what Christ was about to see it turned against the people of the world who He loved unconditionally. Because as much as I love Jesus, I could never in His name box people into believing in Him with the rule of law. And if being that kind of Christian isn't good enough for the powers that be, I too will be subject to the same persecution. Just as anyone who tried to help the Jews got it from Hitler too.

BUT TO ME the main thing to take from the article is that WE THE PEOPLE CANNOT BECOME THAT WHICH WE FIGHT AGAINST - in any way shape or form - OR WE LOSE because if we take on those EXTREME types of behavior it doesn't matter what wonderful ideals we attach to it. Those very behaviors crush underfoot the ability to realize those ideals by the very weight and canter that they must carry to be so extreme.

It's like the difference between being the political storm cloud that masses strength and brings with it the winds of change and cleansing through correct action and being an F5 tornado that wrecks everything in its path. Nobody needs F5 characters in their movement forward creating policy.

[EC]

18. Kick

:kick:

[Evoman]

19. BLAH BLAH BLAH

Ya know....solidarity sounds great. Oh, how we should all bow to the wisdom of your words. We should all focus on the large pictures. Forget the fact we stuck a knife in your back.....there are bigger fish to fry.

Sorry babe...homey don't play that.

Evoman

[Strong Atheist]

35. You rock! rawstory sucks!

:yourock:

[lvx35]

20. Good words!

I totally agree. I think what we really need is just a simple statement we can all agree on regarding this stuff, something like:

1) Respecting the RIGHT of people to believe what they want to whether or not we respect the belief.
2) Protecting the separation of church and state so people can believe in what they want.

Beyond something like that, religion should be a non-issue because its a political party that believes in the separation of church and state.

[Evoman]

21. Yeah, but if religion is not an issue

Then why even have these shitty atheist stories in the first place? I don't get it.

[lvx35]

22. I call it the "Dick Cheney shotgun" effect.

Basically it works like this: Pat Robertson does something retarded, and people try to take well deserved shots at him. But some people take shots like Dick Cheney; meaning they just spray their friends with pellets...Or in other words, they attack ALL people of faith in attacking Robertson...in response, people of faith also come back shooting like Cheney, attacking ALL atheists, many of whom support their goals of separation of church and state. The end result is Democratic atheists/agnostics fighting with Democratic religious moderates while religious extremists pass their legislation in DC. :(

[NMMNG]

23. In other words

"Yes, my publication did something really shitty to you, but there's other really shitty stuff going on in America so you should just ignore it."

Remember that next time you get crapped on.

[Strong Atheist]

36. You rock! rawstory sucks!

:yourock:

[Goblinmonger]

24. Nope

Doesn't work for me either. You can shake your head and wag your finger at me all you like, but what has been said in the form of "apology" isn't nearly close.

And, unlike the US military, I can fight a multifront war. I can be pissed about all the things that the Bush adminstration is doing and still feel that Raw Story sold out the atheists of the party for ad ratings. Yep, I can do both.

Don't you see the irony of the platitudes you are spewing like, "we cannot afford to stand face to face as we are needed to stand shoulder to shoulder"? I mean that sound all lovey and happy and Kumbya and shit, but Raw Story is the one the turned face to face with atheists and told us to shut the hell up and that our views weren't important. So don't kick me in the face with your steel-toed boots and then lecture me about getting pissed off.

Once there is a SINCERE apology, maybe I'll let it go.

[Strong Atheist]

37. You rock! rawstory sucks!

:yourock:

[TreasonousBastard]

25. FWIW, I agree. There have always been...

small groups of militant "whatevers" here who scream bloody murder at presumed slights and try to drive the board their own particular ways. Many have valid complaints, but some are simply attempting to disrupt, and others lose perspective. We will all disagree on many specifics, but why go to war with ourselves over the small stuff?

How can we forget the election wars that even got some to start their own forum with the intent of taking down DU?

Or that person in the Kerry campaign who was driven off the board by all those keyboard warriors who knew better?

I read the article in question and it seemed a bit pointless to me, but the furor over it is even more pointless. Another tempest in a teapot and DU's own brand of sensationalism-- no different than cable news spending more time on a missing blonde or rape accusations than on the affairs of state. An opinion piece that was flawed, but ultimately not important enough to cause the furor.

Your focus is on keeping the national government on track, others focus on the environment, local issues, poverty, international issues, whatever... There is much work to be done everywhere and we have to focus on solving the problems, not creating new ones.

[Goblinmonger]

27. So liberal atheists

are just a "small group of militant 'whatevers'"? Do you really want to cut us loose? What about all of the whackjobs that are listed here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x65029 What should we have done with them? The quotations listed there fall DEAD ON into the list of things Raw Story gave as being atheist whackjobs. I consider myself in good company.

Oh, and by the way, isn't it disingenuous to say

Your focus is on keeping the national government on track, others focus on the environment, local issues, poverty, international issues, whatever... There is much work to be done everywhere and we have to focus on solving the problems, not creating new ones.

when THEY WERE THE ONES THAT PRINTED THE EDITORIAL IN THE FIRST PLACE. I mean, seriously, if there are more important things (which lala and Will and the other sycophants/apologists keep saying) then why did they even publish the editorial in the first place. To quote a really bad 80s pop figure, "Things that make you go hmmmmmm."

[TreasonousBastard]

29. Why not add Sartre to the list...

or a whole bunch of other famous atheists who have affected us greatly, and largely for the better? (Stop before you get to Marx, though-- no point in asking for trouble) Nothing wrong with being an atheist, but there just might be something wrong with making a big deal about it.

Once again-- I don't give a rat's ass what anyone believes or disbelieves but I do object to preaching about it and to specious whining over silly articles.

That goes for ALL sides. God doesn't need the likes of Dobson to defend him, and humanistic, atheistic and agnostic thought doesn't need outbursts of hysteria to defend them. Just makes both sides look silly.

[Goblinmonger]

31. What's wrong with Marx?

Sure, Stalin and Co. used his ideas in a pretty shitty way, but Marx had some good thoughts.

What exactly is "making a big deal" about atheism? Actually saying I am one? Actually saying that I don't want religion shoved down my throat? Actually talking about the problems I have with organized religion? Are you basically saying that everything will be fine as long as I don't make noise and society doesn't know I am an atheist?

Why, exactly, is my "whining" "specious"? What fallacy am I commiting?

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Marx did have some good ideas, but...

overall there were a few fatal flaws in his analyses. Nothing new there, lots of fatal flaws in many major and influential works. Anyway, he's controversial enough that using him as a "reference" is really thin ice.

As far as the rest of it goes, who's shoving religion down your throat here? Or anywhere else for that matter?

Anyone jailing you for heresy? Has the Inquisition reappeared, or Cotton Mather risen from the grave? So you object to outlandish religious display, creationism in all of its incarnations, and the religious right trying to turn us into a theocracy-- OK, we agree there so what's the problem?

The article in question talked about extermists. If you are not an extemist, what's the problem?

And what about shoving atheism down my throat in the Religion/Theology forum? That's OK? I don't have any objection to atheists asking questions, but dismissing "imaginary cloud beings"?

Really, now.

[Zhade]

66. Do you believe in an imaginary cloud being?

If not, why are you offended? After all, only religious extremists believe that way, right?

Look, this WASN'T just an article about 'atheist extremists', though the hack who wrote this hate piece sure tried (and utterly, utterly failed) to cloak her seeting distrust of atheists by describing the made-up-out-of-whole-cloth 'extremist principles' as the acts of unnamed, unknown, nebulous 'extremists'.

And that wouldn't even bother me all that much, except that near the beginning she defines secular - which she attacks - to mean nonbeliever. In other words, ALL ATHEISTS.

[TreasonousBastard]

102. I am not offended, merely...

bemused and slightly annoyed at the tone of the poor, offended atheists over the article. And that it it is perfectly permissable to call the religious stupid for believing in myth but not permissable to offend the poor atheists by casually mentioning that they just might be wrong.

Curiously, every "extremist" argument that she mentions in the article is one I've seen made by atheists here on DU, so what's made up about it?

Is the hysteria over this article that those arguments were never made. Not likely since I've seen them all here and elsewhere. Basic talking points they are.

Is the hysteria over the arguments not being extreme? Sorry, beg to differ, as they are. Every one is demonstrably false, no matter how many time they are repeated here.

So, what is the hysteria all about?

[H2O Man]

135. Imaginary Cloud Beings

I always liked the cover of Lennon's album, "Imagine," with its clouds. I like to see how the spring rains bring leaves out on my rose bushes and shrubs. And I enjoy reading your posts, even the few times I do not fully agree with them.

[Strong Atheist]

98. The article said that ALL atheists were extremist whackjobs:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists

and rawstory went on to defend this HATE SPEECH and attack those asking for apologies:

*********************************************************************

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

**********************************************************************

This is the OFFICIAL rawstory response. rawstory is a HATE PROMOTING SITE! Boycott rawstory!

[TreasonousBastard]

108. Absolute, total, and utter bullshit...

The FULL quote, from which you have managed to delete an important phrase, is:

"First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists."

Notice that last part. Then read it twice and still try to tell me that this author is smearing all atheists.

Then try again to explain why Rawstory should be boycotted as a hate site.

For extra points, explain why it should be boycotted if this were about Christian or Muslim extremists.

I don't see why Rawstory bowed to the pressure and even bothered to respond.

[Strong Atheist]

113. Wrong, her final statement did nothing but try to confuse the

issue by denying what she had just said.

American Tragedy said it better than I did first, so here is her analysis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1007330#1011970

[TreasonousBastard]

115. Sorry, no matter how anyone wants to spin...

that article, it was about extremists-- a subset of just about any group you want to think of.

There is absolutely nothing in the article that implies all atheists are extremists or in any way a problem. However, the responses to the article do seem to imply otherwise.

If one one wants to legitmately complain about the article, one must:

A- Prove that the article smears ALL atheists. (The author specifically says she is not smearing all, so that's a tough one)

B- Prove that the stated propostions of extreme atheists have never been made. (Another tough one since I have seen all of them here on DU)

C- Prove that the propositions made are not extremist. (Tough because the same propositions made by the religious have long been considerewd extreme)

Once again, the article is specifically about extremists, not all atheists. Is anyone suggesting that there are no extreme atheists?

Is anyone suggesting that if there are extreme atheists, they shouldn't be discussed?

Are we only to excoriate extreme religionists?

And, again for extra points, should we boycott DU because some people are vocally against religion, all religion, and moreso than this author is against atheism?

[Strong Atheist]

117. Tell ya what,

I am going to replace "atheist" with "theist" in that paragraph, and non-religious with religion, 'kay?

The "atheist" version:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are atheist extremists.

The "theist" version:

First, what is an theist whackjob? The term religious for the purposes of this article will refer to those who believe all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support religion. Although all religious (by this definition) extremists are theists, not all theists are theist extremists.

Both are HATE SPEECH, capish? Both call ALL theists/atheists whackjobs.

[TreasonousBastard]

118. Nope. "It does not compute" Neither statement is a...

broadbrush smear.

There is a problem with her setting up her initial definition, that's a given, but that's merely semantic error. Nowhere in the article is there any real intimation that she's talking about anything but extreme views.

Hanging all this bile on that one little semantic sloppiness without taking the entire article into account is just wrong. It is reading as sloppy as her definition, and seems to be merely an excuse for complaining about an article some people just don't like.

Aside from the oft-mentioned wasting of time debating this article and avoiding real issues, the substance in the article was about atheistic idocy being the equivalent of religious idiocy.

So, again, are atheists incapable of idiocy, and assholes are only found among the religious?

If atheists are capable of idiocy, should it not be talked about? Should it not be talked about at least as much as religious idiocy?

Or, perhaps, should we just shut up all talk we don't particularly like? Call something "hate speech" and it's easy to shut it up, isn't it?

Simple questions-- any answers?

[Strong Atheist]

119. Plenty of answers:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257416.htm

[TreasonousBastard]

130. No point in continuing this...

since the article is mostly the same stuff that's been said everywhere else.

I remain unconvinced that there was anything substantially wrong with it, and I doubt I will convince anyone who believes otherwise.

Have a good swim in your pool of bile. I'm sure there's someone out there who will listen.

[Inland]

129. The article is clear enough.

In my mind, the writer offended by acknowleding the existence of militant atheists in an aggressive manner. However, neither being aggressive nor speaking of people that exist in real life is off limits, so instead, she must be construed as speaking in broad generalizations and condemning an entire group.

Apologies are demanded for smearing all atheists, which don't come, because she didn't.

And unlike here in DU, where somebody can say an umpteen million times that they didn't mean ALL christians, she isn't here to apologize to each person who didn't read the article very well.

It's a steaming hunk of outrage.

[TreasonousBastard]

131. Just think how bad it would be...

if she had a recipe for fried chicken with cornflakes.

Times like this I kinda miss being a mod. We had soooo much fun over these threads...

[trotsky]

26. All I want is a sincere apology.

And obviously that's never going to come from Raw Story.

You publish an inflammatory piece (whether it was intentionally inflammatory, or just extremely poorly written) and then get upset that your decision to publish such a piece of trash bumped the important issues off the page. Well go figure! Take responsibility for your OWN editorial practices and quit publishing pieces that intend to divide us and make us attack each other!

that we cannot afford to eat our own, must stop engaging and giving attention to people who wish to disrupt and divide

Amen to that comment. Perhaps Raw Story will take its own advice?

[onager]

30. No kidding.

What I'm seeing here is exactly the kind of behavior we see from the mAdministration every day...ironically.

When you screw up, never, NEVER apologize. Instead paint yourself as the victim, obfuscate, and try to spin the facts 180 degrees. Dick Cheney himself couldn't have done it any better than what we're seeing here.

It wouldn't take much: The article was inflammatory and discriminatory. We apologize and we'll be more careful next time.

But from all the outraged whining and petulant canting, you'd think us it was us Whackjob Atheists who initially smeared this cozy little group of mutual admirers.

I do believe it was the other way around.

They have accomplished one thing: in future, the completely mythical Hell will freeze over before I donate money to any organizations who attack atheists. And I don't care what other lib'rul credentials they claim to have. I'll just keep giving to FFRF and its fellow travelers in Whackjobbery.

As I've ranted before, I'm currently working in Egypt and literally trust my life every day to Muslims. And I'm in a nation that, in the past 2 weeks, has seen major religious riots that killed several people and a horrific terrorist bombing.

A few of the Muslims I work with know I'm an atheist, though they prefer the term "non-believer," for some reason. For the record, not one of those crazy, fanatical Muslims has ever called me a "whackjob."

[Strong Atheist]

40. I was going to post something like what you said earlier, and

forgot to. :yourock:

[Strong Atheist]

38. You rock! rawstory sucks!

:yourock:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

123. Ditto

[salvorhardin]

39. I've stayed out of this thread until now

I've had my say in this and wanted to give others time to respond. As much as Raw Story -- and you say you have nothing to do with the article and yet here you are defending Raw Story's actions and casting aspersions on others -- would like people to believe that this was just a handful of bloggers that were illegitimately outraged over Ms. Barton's hate speech, it's just not so. Many bloggers have written on this and gaging from the number of comments attached to Ms. Barton's article, the response here at DU from atheists and theists alike, and elsewhere, the article was found to be uniformly offensive to a minority group. All we're asking for is an apology. If you can't take a stand against religious bigotry, then we at least hope you could do that.

"Raw Story is sorry. Ms. Barton's article was offensive, and not representative of a liberal/progressive viewpoint. We screwed up big time. We won't do it again."

How hard is that?

As PZ Myers said, theocracy is not a progressive value.

[Strong Atheist]

43. You rock! rawstory sucks!

:yourock:

[salvorhardin]

45. Your message is concise and compelling

:yourock:

[Desertrose]

44. Thanks,well said, lala_rawraw

ICAM. We really can't afford to let unsolvable differences in thinking pull us apart.

We need to eliminate this hatred and just "get over it" - if only for now- and concentrate on larger more immediate issues.We are all connected and if we can't get it together, we all go down.

Peace
DR

[salvorhardin]

46. Then an apology should be such a small step in that direction

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. I felt the story

was divisive in an already divided Democratic party. It saddened me. I would like to see an apology. It hurt many good people.

[Strong Atheist]

50. You are a great person!

:yourock:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

52. Thanks

:toast:

[Zhade]

67. THANK YOU, TG.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for being honest, as you always are.

You SO rock for not giving hatred a pass.

[opiate69]

70. Grannie, you just rocketed to the top of my favorites

Not that you were very far down to begin with, mind you. Your posts are always imminently respectful and thouroughly enjoyable.

[WhollyHeretic]

79. Thank you TG. I may not always agree with your posts but you are always

open minded with the discussions you delve into. I have great respect for that. :toast:

[lala_rawraw]

89. As opposed to 20 threads attacking a whole

Group of writers over single columnist's work, which was distorted to by those "offended" to begin with? Amazing really, yes, you do need to apologize for smearing everyone over your "feeling" of the column. You need to apologize for being party to distortion, lies, and hate mail. You need to apologize for personal attacks... you did do all of those things, right? Or did a few people do those things and somehow you were pulled in because you posted the above? Do you understand the difference between a columnist and a group of staffers and reporters? You and your team hurt many people. Some of you altered the writers words. Some of you sent disturbing hate mail. Some of you spammed RS comments section. Some of you attacked people who had nothing to do with the column. Please don't tell me your feelings were hurt when you so brazenly took part in hurting so many. At least the columnist did not intend to hurt, and even issued an apology for not being clear. You and your friends, however, took pleasure in hurting others and egged each other on. You and your friends owe everyone an apology, including all of DU for forcing them to have to see this type of violence. You and your friends divide, as about 20 posts should prove by now. So please stop playing the victim, because when you take such pleasure in hurting others, you deserve no pity. Now I don't know how much you, yourself did directly as I lost track because some people kept posting over and over. If you are not one of this gang, then I apologize for my comments. But then what you should do is actually go read what was done and said, then comment. If, however, you are part of this gang, then as I have said, your eager smearing of good people earns you no pity.

[Strong Atheist]

100. "As opposed to 20 threads attacking a whole"

rawstory is a SITE, and the OFFICIAL response of the site when asked for an apology FOR PROMOTING HATE SPEECH was: "FUCK YOU!":

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

T-Grannie has nothing to apologize fore; rawstory owes thousands a really apology, and then a big apology for the hatred of Avery Walker.


This is the OFFICIAL rawstory response. rawstory is a HATE PROMOTING SITE! Boycott rawstory!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

101. You don't know me very well I don't think

And I am not sure how you wrung all that wrong-doing out my simple post which just stated that I felt the article was divisive and that an apology was warranted.

Personally, I have never read raw story. I don't even quite know whether it is online or hard copy. So I have no beef with raw story otherwise. (Pun intended.)

And I am part of no gang.

I'm a devout Christian whose faith is of the utmost importance to her. That has nothing to do with my disappointment in reading the divisive article. The term "whackjob," really speaks for itself.

There are some very unique and ununusal persons on DU, some of them who benefit from the marvels of modern chemistry. I'm one of them. Whackjob is pretty nasty.

T-Grannie

[lala_rawraw]

106. to you, I apologize...

As I said, there are a bunch of people posting over and over, so the names sort of blurred into one. That said, I don't think you understand what happened. The writer is a columnist who very specifically wrote "SOME" over and over when discussing her argument. I don't agree with her argument, and I have said that over and over, but she never used a brush to smear all atheists or even most atheists...what she wrote that "SOME" and specifically said, "NOT ALL" over and over. We can argue the merits or lack there of in her writing and argument, but the violent hate talk on the part of the few was aimed directly at something she DID NOT write. The claim is that she wrote "ALL" or "MOST" which is false. And as a result, the people posting that not only sent her hate mail, they spammed our site, and they attacked all of us who work there. That is why I called them a gang, because that is what it feels like. When I saw your post, I thought you were just one of them, but it appears I was wrong and so I offer an apology in good faith. But I think it also shows that without having understood the full scope of this, you assumed that what was being said was true, when it was not, and you assumed that you knew everything that went on. Since you are a devout Christian, can you tell me what right this small group of people has to:

a). distort the columnists words?
b). use violent and aggressive insults and personal attack against not only the columnist, but everyone at the publication?
c). send hate mail?
d). assault our web site with spam?
e). attack the credibility of the news reporters, who have nothing to do with the column side and smear them?

Christian, Atheists, whatever, the issue is one of extreme reaction to something that the columnist did not even write. She even apologized in hopes of clarifying her points and stated, again, that SOME people she was talking about, NOT ALL. She was attacked further. The editor on that side of the publication issued a huge response and would not apologize, because he felt this was all done on purpose and I must confess I am starting to believe that myself now. So I am sorry that I responded to you in that way. Things have been a bit heated as you can see and I mistook you for one of the gang. But it is worth repeating that you should consider the whole story, not the cut and paste version people are providing. Anyway, good luck to you and sorry again.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

122. I accept your apology

I only read the original article so I have no knowledge of anything else that happened.

At the very least, her use of "whackjob" was ill-considered. She has a right to her opinions, but that is just not good journalism to use incendiary terms like that.

And it really annoys us real whackjobs, too!

T-Grannie

[lala_rawraw]

125. Good:)

She is not a journo though, she is a columnist. If she were a journo reporting news, she would have fallen to my side of management. That said, I agree it was not written well and have said so. And by the way, I am a wahckjob too, but I also get called a commie, a rusky, a red, and so forth, simply because I was born in another country. It is crazy all this name calling, on all sides and from all parties. Anyway, glad we worked that out. There was another poster in this thread who I talked to privately and we too have worked it out. So looks like things are clearing up finally. Have a great weekend!:D

[SidDithers]

53. I've refrained from criticizing RawStory through this...

I've criticized the article, and debated with those who've defended the article, but have not commented on Raw Story. Your comments here, however, though well intentioned, do deserve a reply.

Belittling the valid concerns of atheist posters and bloggers as getting "a small group of pals together to make themselves seem important" is a gross mischaracterization of how we feel about Ms. Barton's article. People get rude and angry when they feel their concerns are summarily dismissed, so you shouldn't be surprised at the volume of the criticisms of the piece.

But the main problem that I have about your comments here is this. If there are so many more important issues to deal with, so many "more important things that have to be screamed, shouted, pushed into MSM", what was the reason for publishing such a distracting article in the first place?

You can't publish a provocative, controversial, irrelevant piece, and then complain when the replies to that irrelevant piece detract from the more important issues of the day.

Sid

Edit: spelling

[SidDithers]

80. Crickets...

Sorry to say, I'm not surprised.

Sid

[Strong Atheist]

54. Great backhanded compliment there! :

they also have a right to get a small group of pals together to make themselves seem important, despite the ugliness of their behavior. Whatever the motives, the issues, the concerns are of certain small group of people

Whoever could who you are talking about? ;-)

Goes well with this:

We are all on the same side

ROFLMAO!

[Zenlitened]

59. Straight out of the Dick Cheney School of Diplomacy

Unreal.

Rawstory dumps a huge dogpile on the liberal blogosphere, a poorly-reasoned and poorly-argued rant admonishing "bad" liberals... and it's the liberal blogosphere that needs to stop being "divisive"?

Gimme a break. :eyes:

[Strong Atheist]

77. You rock! rawstory sucks!

:yourock:

[Robbie Michaels]

61. Took The Words Out Of My Mouth

We should focus on the things that really matter. Sometimes there are fights on here for some of the pettiest things.

[Goblinmonger]

81. If "we" should be focusing on the things that really matter,

why did they publish that editorial in the first place?

[lala_rawraw]

90. Are you kidding?

I give up trying to reason with you and yours. My god, it is like you are taking pleasure in simply twisting everything and distorting things. That is really sick and frankly, creeps me out.

[Goblinmonger]

92. I don't get it

YOU are the one saying that this issue is unimportant and just divisive to the cause. YOU are the one saying that there are so many more important issues out there that need to be addressed. YOU are the one saying that we need to keep our eye on the ball and not be distracted by minor issues like this. YOU are the one saying that we need to support our own in these troubled times.

If all of what YOU say is true, then whey did RS publish that editorial? Why waste bandwidth on something that wasn't important? I am twisting nothing. If you are going to use the "unimportant" and "divisive" as ways to wag your finger at me, then I think it is quite clearly a legitimate point to ask you the same questions. Why did RS publish an editorial about and unimportant and divisive issue? Why did RS publish an editorial that calls for the purging of "our own"? Why not start wagging that finger back at yourselves first?

Was it run perhaps for the "attention" and "advertising revenue" that Avery referred to in his non-apology? Couldn't be that, now, could it?

[lala_rawraw]

93. I have discussed this over and over...

That is what I am saying. You are not reading my words and keep asking me the same question over and over. I have an idea...check your PM, perhaps one on one we can reason.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

68. Irony: asking for "respect" and "support" in a post...

... that belittles people who disagree with Raw Story and accuses them of being "small" in number, "petty" and "wish[ing] to disrupt and divide, nothing more".

Some snipped quotes, emphasis mine, read the OP for the full context:

People have the right to say what they will, of course and they also have a right to get a small group of pals together to make themselves seem important, despite the ugliness of their behavior. Whatever the motives, the issues, the concerns are of certain small group of people, they cannot take precedence over the matters that threaten all of us and in every way. All of us, despite our differences, have the same goal here (I hope) and the same respect for one another (I hope) that is required to get this nation through a crisis not seen since the Civil War.

I don't mind, but to spend endless hours debating your personal opinion about a publication over the far more important things that have to be screamed, shouted, pushed into MSM, is surrendering your duty and your purpose to this: petty hate.

So the majority of us who understand that: a). we are all on the same side, b). that our country is in serious trouble, c). that we cannot afford to eat our own, must stop engaging and giving attention to people who wish to disrupt and divide, nothing more.

If the topics you listed were the most important this week, why didn't Raw Story run editorials on them instead of that smear-piece?

Unbelievable. :eyes:

[Strong Atheist]

78. You rock! rawstory sucks!

:yourock:

[lala_rawraw]

83. It is unfortunate

That you would smear a whole group of people doing something of value, while you sit in your living room and use a screen name. I don't need to rock, with you that is, as your own agenda has made you nothing more than a hate monger attacking good people. You claim to be an atheist, but all atheists I know use reason and logic, not hate, to win arguments. You and your friends have gone on a crusade to destroy Raw Story and Truth out, as though those things were simply ethereal words floating around, with no people attached to them. But when you say Raw Story and/or Truth out, and you say the things that you have about both places, who are you attacking, do you know? Do you care? I don't think so. Your goal, it appears, is to attack and that is quite sad, for DU, and really for you. If you would take a fraction of that energy and take on something important as opposed to smearing good people, you might actually do something of great value. But why bother, when there are good people to be attacked and smeared? You must be very proud. I think you should be ashamed.

[Strong Atheist]

94. "That you would smear a whole group of people"

That's rich!:rofl:, considering that rawstory CHOSE to print and DEFEND AS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE THIS type of HATE SPEECH:

First, what is an atheist whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists

Tell you what, though. I am forgiving guy. I will make the EXACT SAME apologies that rawstory did:


***********************************************************************

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me

The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology.

[lala_rawraw]

97. You are again distorting the facts, figures...

She, the columnist, said SOME where as you, the attacker simply say RAW STORY... see the difference? Secondly, why do you not post her apology at all? Why do you post only part of Avery's comments? Post her full apology and his full comments and also, explain why you changed her words... we want to know... think you can provide a reasoned response or just more font tricks?

[Strong Atheist]

103. I have posted his full

HATE FILLED reply many times, several right here in this thread, but I will do it again, just for you:

**********************************************************************

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm | #

*********************************************************************

In other words, FUCK ALL YOU ATHEISTS, rawstory OFFICIALLY REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE FOR HATE SPEECH. Well, good for them. That makes them officially a HATE PROMOTING site. Have nice day.

[lala_rawraw]

105. Where is her full apology?

And read what I wrote up thread, about.com part... if you got her column from there, then that is where the confusion is... scroll up and read my "holy shite" post.

[Strong Atheist]

112. You just don't

honestly and truly understand, do you? I am amazed:wow:

It has gone beyond what that piece-of-shit hate-filled bigot barton wrote.

I don't care about her non-apology at this point:

(Translation of Barton apology: *snivel* *whine* I am sorry that all you atheist scumbags were too stupid to understand that I was not talking about ALL of you, just the ones who are atheists (I am sorry you saw through my coded hate speech). I am REALLY REALLY sorry that you all have exposed me for the SACK-OF-SHIT hate-filled bigot that I am, and I want you all to go away and stop telling the world the truth about me. Shalom. *snivel*, *whine* *slink away back to the slime covered rock I crawled from under*)

The fact that rawstory

1. Published this hate-filled shit.

2. and then DEFENDED it, not as free speech, but as a good article

3. and told all us atheist "fuck you, shut up, this bigotry/hatred is just great by us" (see the Avery Walker shit)

means that RAWSTORY, NOT that sack-of-shit barton, now needs to make MAJOR amends, starting with publicly firing walker, apologizing for PROMOTING AND DEFENDING HATE SPEECH, and promising NEVER TO DO IT AGAIN.

Personally, I think it is too late, at this point (days later), any steps taken by rawstory will not be seen as honest attempts to fix bigotry and hatred at rawstory, but will be seen as a craven attempt to deflect criticism, much like when Trent Lott "apologized" for defending that racist shit thurmond... too little, WAY to late...

[lala_rawraw]

126. Wow, how many more lies do you think you can locate to insert there?

[Inland]

128. "IOW, FUCK ALL YOU...." It isn't "hate speech" until you "translate"

I mean, "Fuck you atheists" is hate speech. But nobody said that. Nobody said anything close to that. If that had, you wouldn't have to paraphrase it in order to make your point, to take something and say, "IOW". You dont' know hate speech if you think it has to be paraphrased to make it such. Hate speech is "Fuck all you atheists!". What is not hate speech is anything else where somebody says, "its as if he said something very much like that, here, let me paraphrase IOW".

In fact, it seems that you conclude with a paraphrase because otherwise, nobody would know you were outraged...but instead, everybody knows you are outraged but nobody knows why.

If there's something untrue, or unfair, you could try to make the case.

Color me unimpressed by slapping a label of "hate speech" on something with a dollop of outrage.

[lala_rawraw]

133. Yep, and take it from someone who lived in the USSR

This violent attack and distortion is more hate speech than anything in that column. This is why the left is then misrepresented as overly politically correct and dishonest, because people cry victim at everything and then real victims are left without any hope of representation. These people don't know hate speech, of that I am certain. Hate speech does not empower or unite, it destroys and suppresses, it seeks to silence and discredit, it seeks nothing open. That to me is hate speech and what I see is that some of the people posting this stuff fall into the hate speech category exactly and make the argument that the actual columnist failed to adequately make. They actually proved her point, a point she did not write well and that was largely ignored and then these few people have made her point exactly. The irony. At least some of the posters I have communicate with privately understand just how much of this is based on distortion and have quietly apologized. Others have simply agreed that this was way out of control and still others posted an olive branch. So whomever is left, I would say, is behind this trojan horse attack on the left's press. Don't you think? Anyway, thanks for the backup.

[Festivito]

82. Right! We have bigger fish to fry.

I see some of the people here cannot see my reason, and,
apparently, they see that I do not see theirs.

So, we see each other as nuts, but, we have bigger stories to attend.
Onward.

[lala_rawraw]

99. yep

coming with you... i had insomnia so I was posting... but this has grown tiresome and it clearly did not penetrate at all, so no point in attempting to converse with people who have an agenda and are finding anything they can to fit that agenda. onward then, i am going to nap, but then two articles and a week later, i will be back. catch you on the flip side.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

134. I've seen your responses and you just don't get it...l

Let me give you an analogy...

Let us say that there was some newspaper...lets call it Flawstory. Flawstory wrote a story about gay and lesbian whackjobs. The author of that story defined a gay and lesbian whackjob as a person who was CERTAIN they liked people of the same sex. Said author then went on to say how that gay whackjob ought to be purged from the democratic party.

The gays complain. Does Flawstory apologize. No, not at all. The gays get mad and let flawstory know that it no longer has their support.

A Flawstory representative then goes the the GBLT discussion board and talks a nice talk about support and unity. Gays get mad again. Then the rep start telling them they are being politically correct and it was no big deal.

The gays then tell said rep to FUCK OFF!!!


Do you get it yet?