Comments on: Al Lewis Digging Himself a Deeper Hole

By: Vincent

Vincent — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:43:28 +0000

We only disagree in that you think the statement is true.
So you think atheists are either cowards or liars. You haven’t given me another meaning to think about.

You’re not about to derisively call a black male “boy.” Why? Because you KNOW the connotation. You KNOW how it will be perceived. The difference here is you are upset with someone who is ignorant of your feelings.

Actually, we’re upset because he was informed of how offensive the statement was and STILL stood behind it. He could not claim ignorance but didn’t do what you say you are doing and change his ways.

By: Calvin Moore

Calvin Moore — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:35:31 +0000

If I say I am done with this conversation you will call me a coward. If I say nothing, your comments will go unchallenged. So…before I leave this particular conversation, here is what I WOULD have said in response:

Both of you are forgetting one thing–context. While “nigger” is ALWAYS offensive (despite what some would have you think), “boy,” as you have stated, is not. I can concede said point. However, if you innocently called me, such as “Boy, you’re so crazy,” and pushed me, laughing, there’d be no misunderstanding as to what you meant. If you said, “Boy, you better know your role,” well then the context has changed, as has the meaning. Admittedly, this is slightly different the “There are no atheists in foxholes,” argument, but I believe we’ve now moved away from that topic to make you feel better. You and I BOTH know you’re not about to go out and call anyone a nigger. You’re not about to derisively call a black male “boy.” Why? Because you KNOW the connotation. You KNOW how it will be perceived. The difference here is you are upset with someone who is ignorant of your feelings. I, for one, will no longer utter the statement, “There are no atheists in foxholes.” Why? Do I believe the statement is true? Sure I do. I’m a Christian. That’s like…the default button or something for us. But, apparently, it is offensive to a group of people I ignorantly believed to be nebulous, rather than apparently more organized than crime and religion. (That’s not a jab, just waxing poetic.)

So, ultimately, I think the difference is between ignorance and knowledge. I have knowledge that this is offensive speech. As a Christian, this is something I don’t believe it is my job to push the point on just to be offensive. As for the author, I’m not sure what his position is now after the complaint and a few days to think about it soberly. There are, of course, other non-negotiables, but that is a conversation for another day.

That is what I WOULD have said. I’m not going to respond to this thread anymore. If we still disagree, we’ll just have to agree to do that. Pax.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:58:54 +0000

Calvin Moore said,

September 17, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Okay. Now, you’re TRYING to be insulting.

No I’m not. I’m trying to prove a point. I think ash made that clear. Boy is a good example. It is a word that has absolutely no derogatory denotation. It means an underage male. But you hear it and interpret it to be offensive.
You claimed the foxhole statement was innocent, and people offended by it should not be because it’s not inherently offensive.
I showed you some non-inherently offensive words that many people clearly are offended by.

Here’s the difference though. “Boy” has no inherent insult.
“There are no atheists in foxholes” does.
When you say it, you mean: 1- there are no atheists in the armed forces (patently false) which has the underlying insult that atheists are either cowardly or unpatriotic; or 2- when faced with impending death, everyone turns to god, which has the underlying insult that atheists are lying.

Of course, if you can tell me some other meaning of the phrase I may reconsider.

By: ash

ash — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:03:19 +0000

I think very few would agree with you that the term “boy” or “nigger” were ever misinterpreted by anyone as anything but deragatory.

well, sorry if this offends further, but…

i wouldn’t use the n word myself, but to claim it has never been used in a less than derogatory way sweeps entire sections of young black sub- and counter-culture under the rug.

i have heard the term ‘boy’ applied many times by people of any colour to male children of any colour without it being remotely derogatory. i myself regularly use this term with my friends, without regard to age, race or even gender; for us it’s an affectionate term.

by claiming right to offense for terms that can and are used with non-offensive meanings whilst also arguing against the same, you’re in danger of debunking yourself.

By: Calvin Moore

Calvin Moore — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:36:41 +0000

Okay. Now, you’re TRYING to be insulting. I think very few would agree with you that the term “boy” or “nigger” were ever misinterpreted by anyone as anything but deragatory. For anyone with any sense of history, you know that is comparing apples to oranges when something is said innocently and heard as insulting as opposed to something insulting said with the intent of being insulted. Your point is not well taken because it is wrong.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:53:02 +0000

Calvin, since you mentioned you are black, can I, as a white man, comfortably use “the N word”? I don’t mean it to be insulting. You just come from a framework that makes you think it is insulting.
Same with calling you “boy.” (or perhaps that doesn’t carry the same weight as it used to) Boy is not an insulting word at all – unless you have a certain framework.
Honestly, saying that something is acceptable because the person who says it doesn’t think it’s a problem is patently ridiculous.

By: PrimateIR

PrimateIR — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:32:08 +0000

Calvin said:

As many here often posit, atheists are fighting for the right NOT to believe in God

No. We don’t believe in God. Period. Until the day of thought police that is not something we need to “fight for”

We demand what ever individual wants. Respect.

By: Bad

Bad — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:07:42 +0000

Calvin, I guess I don’t see how the philosophical framework you are alleging explains the remark better actually does so. It’s just as bad and just as arrogant. Just because you don’t desire to insult someone doesn’t make the remark less insulting. Someone claiming that women are inferior to men intellectually might not want women to feel insulted, but that’s neiher here nor there: it IS insulting.

By: Calvin Moore

Calvin Moore — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:20:53 +0000

I can concede the point that many of you believe the adage to be insulting. Though, I must admit (to me and most people–as most people believe in some sort of deity) that it rings much different than an all out attack on any specific belief. As many here often posit, atheists are fighting for the right NOT to believe in God. The distinction is often made that atheists believe all sorts of things, just not in God. When talking about the philosophy of religion, however, one must realize that you are both operating from differing philosophical frameworks. Taking this into account, it is not an insult. But, I understand where you’re coming from. When someone innocently says, “Calvin, you’re the whitest black man,” to me, it is said because they are operating from a philosophical framework they don’t fully comprehend, but yet it still informs them. What I HEAR (and every black person who has ever had this said to them hears) is, “Calvin, you’re not like other black people. Because of your education, you’ve somehow transcended your race and the stereotypes I’m buying into right now by making this statement.” So, while I am insulted by the statement, I also realize that it is not made from a DESIRE to insult me or my intelligence. Does this make sense? So, I can understand how the statement “There are no atheists in foxholes” might come off as insulting to you. But, when I’ve said it in the past (and when most people say it) it is more from a philosophical framework, rather than a desire to alienate those who don’t believe like I do.

(I’m out of town for a few days, so I’m sure I’ll come back and see my arguments all torn apart. So, go ahead…quote away! LOL.)

By: olvlzl, no ism, no ist

olvlzl, no ism, no ist — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:51:26 +0000

Richard Wade Okay, olvlzl, no ism, no ist, For the sake of this blog I’ll back off.

You’re a Christian martyr, yes, honey, that’s what you are, a Christian martyr! THE GLASS MENAGERIE: SCENE 4,