Monday, January 02, 2006

Apparently, some Progressive Bloggers aren't all that "progressive."


I'm used to criticism from various citizens of the wankersphere for my writings on evolution and "Intelligent Design" and high-falutin' sciency stuff like that there. I'm not so used to taking that kind of grief from members of PB.ca, and I'm a little worried about what might be the start of an ugly trend.

Over here, a Mr. Paul Vincent from PB site "Youth in Canada" takes issue with a recent post of mine slapping around Intelligent Design. Sadly, he starts off badly and it just goes downhill from there.

Vincent opens:

I had the privilage of reading a blog entry by Canadian Cynic who proposed a theory written by Davie Smillie of the Toronto Star.

Sigh. First, it's "privilege," not "privilage." Yes, it sounds picky but, really, if you want to be taken seriously, you can at least use a spell checker so as to not look like an illiterate buffoon. (Personally, I never use one myself as they all keep insisting that I have somehow misspelled "dumbfuck." Stupid, stupid programs.)

Not quite as forgivable is that it's "David," not "Davie", and, even worse, I'm not sure how it is that I could "propose" a theory that had already been "written by" Smillie. Three screwups of various degree in the first sentence -- not an auspicious beginning. And it only gets worse, as Vincent writes:

As a non-religious man (an atheist in fact) ...

Dude, if you're "non-religious," you are by definition an atheist. At the very least, if you're going to take a stand for a lack of religious belief, you could understand how to define it. But it's where Vincent starts to wax philosophical that he descends into pure absurdity trying to defend Intelligent Design:

Who is to say that sickness isn't invented to create human ambition into medecine [sic]? Who is to say lightning doesn't exist to create courage? Who is to say we don't have wings so that we could build flying machines? Who is to say we do not have gills so as we could build ships that could cruise across the sea.

Along the same lines, who is to say that if pigs had wings, they couldn't fly? What nonsense.

Vincent is indulging in an endless stream of "What if" conjecture. Now, there's nothing wrong with this -- scientists ponder "what if" scenarios all the time. But, unlike Vincent, they don't stop there.

If a scientist is sufficiently intrigued by a particular "what if," he or she will then try to rephrase it in terms of a hypothesis, then follow that up with an experiment to test the scenario in hopes of turning it into a theory and perhaps making a new discovery of some sort.

See the difference? For scientists, "what if" is just a starting point for some scientific investigation. For Vincent, it appears to be the goal -- a handful of pointless conjecturing which is no more useful or informative than arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. What Vincent is describing is not the foundation for any meaningful research program; it's just worthless Christian apologetics. But that's not even the worst part.

It's grating enough that a fellow Progressive Blogger would appear to be taking a stand in defense of Intelligent Design. But it's Vincent's blogroll that's real cause for concern. Down the right-hand side of his home page, we learn that three of Vincent's five favourite blogs are the thoroughly right-wing "Pajamas Media" member "Angry in the Great White North," the rancidly dishonest "Strongworld" of Bill Strong and, most frightening of all, Kate over at "Small Dead Animals."

This is a progressive blogger? Since when? It's not as if I have any say in the membership at PB.ca but, with a blogroll like that, Mr. Vincent might want to rethink his commitment to actual progressive values. And Scott Tribe might want to rethink the PB membership criteria.

And Mr. Vincent might want to rethink his aversion to learning some actual science.

16 comments:

Dr.Dawg said...

Ouch! I just added three right-wingers to my own blogroll, including two cited here.

Why? It pays to know the enemy. Most of the right-wing is too babblingly incoherent and hateful to allow one to discern (without great difficulty) the essence of the conservative world-view. I, for one, am fascinated that anyone could believe and express the things that they do, and I want to know why. With people like Kate and Angry, who have brains in their heads, we get a glimpse. Doesn't that strengthen us?

Your takedown here, though, is solid. But you've chosen, alas, an easy target--probably a teenager, by the sound of things.

Best for the New Year.

CC said...

There is, however, a difference in putting right-wingers on your blogroll because you want to "know thine enemy," and putting them there because they're some of your favourites, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

And, blogroll aside, Mr. Vincent's apparent fondness for ID is enough to be a cause for concern.

RP. said...

Mr. Paul Vincent from PB site "Youth in Canada"

..reminds me a lot of Werner Patels. Pay them no mind.

Anonymous said...

RP, you're an idiot. And for the record, I don't know that blogger that gets blasted here, and I don't care about ID one way or another.

The whole Progressive Bloggers group is for the most part extremely regressive (by definition, as Canadian Cynic keeps saying in his post).

Progressive is about looking at different and new ideas with an open mind, and not to shut down all debate simply because it does not fit into your own personal world view. Progressive is about change and furthering our democracy, yet most Regressive Bloggers espouse the same old and tired ideas (i.e., spend, spend, spend with no reguard for the future and/or sustainability).

CC said...

albertaavenue writes:

The whole Progressive Bloggers group is for the most part extremely regressive (by definition, as Canadian Cynic keeps saying in his post).

Really? And where exactly do I say that? Particularly with respect to Intelligent Design. Enquiring minds definitely want to know.

Oxford County Liberals said...

Well.. not to defend Youth In Canada's POV or anything Cynic, but he's one of our "red Tory" members who is also a member of the Blogging Tories, and thus it doesnt surprise me that he might say a few things that other Progressive Bloggers might not agree with.

We didnt start Prog Blogs with the express purpose of starting an echo chamber.. so we encourage different points of view and we dont mind civil debate among our own members. With our members ranging from 1 marxist (or leftie libertarian, whatever Le Revue Gauche prefers to be called), to Green Party Members, to Liberals, to NDP, to Red Tories.. its not unheard of that we might have differing points of view.

Just ask Dr. Dawg. He's taken several of his fellow members to task (to put it mildly) for points he didnt agree with.

buckets said...

CC. It is easy to find people on the net to engage in discussion who are less intelligent than you. But usually it's a waste of time to do so.

Anonymous said...

Spiritualists and Budhists do not view themselves "religious", nor do they consider themselves "atheists". Nonetheless, point taken. My thought is that this fellow might be unawares of his own agnosticism.

Let us not forget that many a conservative view themselves 'progressive'. The latter being a term of relativity, at best. I suppose that is why folks whom I might deem "progressive" thinkers are too oft refered to as "radical".

Besides, debating ID is kind of fun. It is the sort of discussion that can span philosophy, psychology, religion, biology, physics, and materialism in one sitting.... Surely there are worse examples of non-progressive progressive viewpoints?

Oxford County Liberals said...

One addenum to my commentary here:

While I appreciate Cynic's desire to give me more power at Prog Blogs then what I currently hold, keep in mind I'm only one of the moderators there (Bart of CalgaryGrit being the other) - Wayne Chu is the chief Site Administrator there, and while Bart and I obviously have a lot of input over there on decisions, he is the one who makes the final decisions on members and who gets to join and who doesnt, and other site policy.

If you really have a problem with someone on our blogroll.. and you dont like my response when you contact me (or Bart for that matter), its best to take it up with him. (And we really would prefer if you take it up with him in private first, before you decide to blast someone in public. We dislike seeing members squabble in public and we would prefer to avoid intra-blog wars if it can at all be helped).

No criticism intended towards you Cynic about this blog posting.. just something to remember for next time you see a Prog Blog member blogging that you feel doesnt meet Prog Blog standards ;)

Anonymous said...

Well said, Scott. In fact, Canadian Cynic's hateful diatribe is yet another example of the regressiveness of many members of "Progrressive" Bloggers. It shows intolerance of other people's views, which, by definition, is regressive.

Oxford County Liberals said...

Well Werner.. if you're giving me a compliment, does that mean you dont think I'm an "idiot" anymore, as I apparently was deemed just before Christmas?

If we want to get into semantics about who is progressive and who isnt, calling someone an "idiot" for a certain Point of View could be classified as "regressive"

Anonymous said...

And you're right, Scott, it WAS regressive of me to do so. Unfortunately, we all have progressive and regressive days ;-)

Cathie from Canada said...

But Polly -- I don't think the PB feed picks up the photos. CC was talking about Michelle Malkin and Jeanne Schmidt -- the very definition of "crazy-ass" and the poster children for "bitch". There is no other way to describe these two, particularly if you are actually a feminist.

Cathie from Canada said...

Polly, I wonder if you know who Michelle Malkin and Jeanne Schmidt are? I guess not -- CC has been attacking their arguments ever since he began this blog. Their arguments are that creationism and Bush and Gitmo and Schiavo and internment amd Iraq and every single right-wing talking point are all wonderful and that liberals and constitutional law and international law and the Democratic Party and John Murtha are all dirt. Their ideas are crazy and they both act like bitches. Hence, crazy-ass bitch is the only name for them.

Anonymous said...

Uhm... I'm not really in favour of crude language as a means of describing individuals either. It is especially decerning when positioned briefly beneath images of distorted talking headshots.. It does depict a kind of violence.

However.

I'm all for the reclaiming of the word "Bitch", as well as the word "Asshole". The latter is my favourite. At anyrate, I moreso regret that you used the term to degrade someone, as opposed to saving it for far more enlightenned examples of a "Bitch". A woman that we really like, who kicks 'regressive' butt, for example... Because we all know that many a good women were deemed bitches just for measuring up to a man. So why not defy the old conitation and give it its proper place?

Polly.. I understand your sentiment. But I also hope that I can 'convert' your sensibilities regarding the "B" word:

http://dialogic.blogspot.com/
has an article or two posted atop his blog that you might find of interest...

Anonymous said...

oops.. forgot to give ya this one too:

http://www.bitchmagazine.com/