However, there was an interesting double dose of a negative version of the “no True Scotsman” fallacy, in that the BNP were basically saying we’re not fascists, we’re nice fascists – don’t confuse us with those nasty fascists. And the muslim lady saying the very same thing – don’t confuse me with the nasty extremist muslims, we’re the nice muslims. But the BNP were rightly criticized for this, but nobody criticized the muslim lady for making exactly the same argument….

The UKs flagship political program, Question Time, recently aired an episode with the leader of the BNP (an odious creep named Nick Griffin) debating the issues with the current UK justice minister, a tory member of the house of lords, an american artist and the Liberal democrat spokesman. It turned into pretty much everyone attacking Nick Griffin and really bringing out some of his more unpopular views.

The debate since has been, did the bad publicity work in the BNPs favour, or did it expose them as the bigots they are?

No real conclusion but it seems that many have been horrified by the BNPs posititions, even as they have had a sudden 3000 new membership applications. From which one has to see that they were indeed exposed as bigots, and some people liked what they saw.

It’s kind of like the Atheist signs we’ve been talking about so much lately. For all too long, we’ve let the negative stereotypes fester and now the signs are drawing attention.

There’s a certain segment that are going to say there go those Atheists again, no matter how nice a spin we put on them, despite the fact that the signs were very nonconfrontational and peaceable. A certain segment is gonna cry they’re picking on Christians again despite they only say we’re not as we’ve been painted and say nothing about Christians at all.

Likewise, (and I had to watch the whole piece, very fascinating), with media hype for this kind of thing. You’ve got to take the bad with the good. We should still debunk despite, yes, they’re getting good publicity. James Randi is doing good work at outing the charletons.

Bottom line is at least it gets the debate out there rather than it not even being up for discussion. Knowledge is power. This at least gets the skeptical view out to the people — whether they’re willing to listen or not.

Frankly, that’s the beauty of the information age we’re living in. Knowledge at the fingertips via the computer screen. But it is only a tool. It’s up to the user of that tool to use it well or foolishly. Doesn’t mean the tool shouldn’t be used. John Henry was wrong.

And I never heard of that pulse stopping trick. I have got to try this out! Knowledge is also fun!

Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened.

So, I can see how some people could argue that it isn’t worth their time to debate an issue, but I still wouldn’t agree that that means that no one else should debate it either.

It’s because it was juicy video that they went with, once that guy threw water on the interviewer.

The news media LOVE stuff like that. It’s crack to them. Put your baby in a balloon, and you’ll get twice the airtime.

The problem isn’t that “thoughtful skeptical criticism gets them too much publicity.” The problem is that the tv news media are vapid as all hell. Would that they WERE providing thoughtful skeptical criticism.

In other words, I don’t see how the Randi incident above, in any way should lead us to conclude that thoughtful criticism should be avoided as a media trap.

Apologies for it being in french; hopefully the humor will not be completely lost in my attempt at a translation below.

For context : this is from the show “Groland”, a parody of TV news (think ‘The Daily Show’, except much more vulgar :p).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q0ZAcUfM24

Translation:
-Journalist: “So, Jean-Fabien, you are a medium, correct ?”
-Medium: “Exactly; I predict the future.”
The journalist slaps the medium in the face.
-J: “How about that one ? Did you predict that ?”
-J: “You see, Jules-Edouard [the studio host of the show], no need for long debates to debunk charlatans !”

It’s been a bad year for CoS, and the death spiral might be accelerating. From reading about the church’s actions, it sounds like U.S. law enforcement agencies are investigating some very serious criminal accusations, above and beyond the usual fraud and graft. David “Slap-Happy” Miscavidge must be chewing carpets, which puts a smile on my cynical old face.

Sure, the controversy stirs up alot of dust, but eventually the dust settles. When people were talking about a heliocentric solar system, there were people who were very vocally against it. After (far too) many years, the a very comfortable majority of all humans understand the sun being at the middle of our system. Its a painful model for those of us who rely on empiricism, but it has been shown to be effective.

Time is on the side of skepticism. We as skeptics have the painful job of being ever vigilant against the frauds. Despite momentary uptics in attendance, I think that active debunking is still the best approach. Sunlight is the best antiseptic.