2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« Skeptics' Circle #55 The RantsOf Mollusks And Men... »

Just Not Getting Your Intended Clientele
2007.03.02 (Fri) 22:38

We were looking at our Google Ads, when we saw this advertisement:

Meet Atheist Women & Men
A site devoted exclusively to Atheist/Agnostic Singles
www.freethinkermatch.com

So we clicked on it. No, we weren't trying to find a date for the weekend — we were just intrigued when we saw an ad for any product or service at all that was actually targeted specifically at atheists and agnostics. That's something we just don't see. Ever. So...neat. We were impressed.

Of course, when we got to the site, we were quite de-impressed almost immediately when we saw this:

Welcome to the Free Thinker's Match Maker. Do any of the following describe you...
  • Atheist
  • Agnostic
  • Freethinker
  • Humanist
  • Non-Religious
  • Non-Practicing
  • Objectivist
  • Skeptic
  • Pagan
  • Deist

...as well as single and looking?

If so, then this site is for you. Browse 1000s of profiles and photos placed by like minded singles.

Okay, sing along with us (or with Cookie):

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing on the list of "Free Thinkers" was not like the others, boys and girls? Yes, we realize that including deists on this list may be a little bit of a stretch for some, but in practice, most deists we've met tend to be pretty much agnostic anyway, so we can live with that one.

But...pagans? Pagans?! Fuck, we can hardly think of a less suitable group to include on this list! Self-identified "pagans" are among the loopiest true believers on the market today. They are about as far from being freethinkers as it's possible to get. Although they tend to see themselves as all unique and special, they are really just revisiting various types of tried and untrue woo, mushing them all together, and adding scented candles and an unconventional fashion sense. Most pagans that we've met are the most banal lemmings that can be found, the exact opposite of freethinkers (a completely sincere statement from one pagan we know, verbatim: "Oh, yes, I was totally skeptical about John Edward at first, but now I totally believe him" — like, totally). We don't know very many critical thinkers who would willingly choose to associate with them, let alone date them. Of course, if the coven (or whatever they want to call themselves) is into ritualistic orgies, that's a different discussion, but our point about a lack of critical thinking, to say nothing of independent individual thought, remains firm.

Why not just toss Scientologists into the mix as well? Hey, they're not a mainstream religion, either — so they must be freethinkers, right? For fuck's sake.

What the fuck is wrong with these people? Do they really think that pagans have anything in common with the rest of these groups? Do they really not understand that adding pagans into this particular mix renders their entire idea useless to those it is intended to serve?

Listen, we know some folks who call themselves pagans — quite well, in fact (some are blood relations). We persist in referring to them as "folks who call themselves pagans," as opposed to simply "pagans," because of the sheer silly audacity that leads so many people to commandeer a very old label to refer to their new take on any tired concept — apparently, from what we've seen, this is some effort to "connect" their boring retread crapola to some larger historical, cultural, or spiritual framework. You can see the same idea at work in those who think that electrical current introduced to the body through thin needles should be called "acupuncture" — despite the fact that acupuncture, as established thousands of years ago (and translated into English a bit more recently), never included any access to a source of electricity.

As another example, take a look at the modern crew who latched onto the word "witch" (many of them use the "pagan" label, too) and redefined it to mean what they want it to mean — utterly disregarding the history of the word (though even some dictionaries are now fooled into thinking that "Wicca" is a pre-Christian religion), and the popular understanding of its meaning. Unlike science and reality, which — as we keep having to remind the woos and other true believers — are not democracies, language is a democracy, perhaps the oldest form of human democracy still in existence. The meanings of words, their proper and casual usage, the idioms derived from them...plenty of books are written on these "rules," but look around, and listen — the books don't decide what the rules are, despite many pedantic claims, but rather report what rules the actual speakers and writers of the language have established simply by using said language on a daily basis, over the course of generations. Yes, all linguists and keen observers of the phenomenon understand that language evolves and changes memetically in a remarkable imitation of actual biological evolution, but the reason for this is popularization: it is a democratic "natural selection" process that weeds out archaic, undesirable, or peripheral words and usage from those that are accepted by the majority of speakers. It's how languages form, how they branch off from one another; it's how we go from a pidgin, to a creole, to a fully-fledged language. Everybody gets to participate in this selection process, and even has a chance to introduce substantial changes to their language, simply by virtue of engaging in conversations with others or expressing their thoughts in writing. How much more democratic can you get?

But because modern "pagans" and "witches" want to establish themselves as freethinkers, and are clearly incapable of doing so through their actual ideas and practices — which are the same old, same old when it comes to woo and religion — they "rebel" in the only way they seem able: by stealing real words and making up their own meanings (or making up new ones and pretending they're ancient). This, presumably, demonstrates just how "unique" and "special" they are, because their usage of words is so different from everybody else's. "See?" they cry. "You mainstream sheep think words mean that, but we use them to mean this." This leads to their triumphant battle cry: "We're special!"

They've tried tattoos, they've tried extensive body-piercing, they've tried outrageous modes of dress and hairstyles and makeup...but all of these practices quickly become absorbed into the mainstream (as they should be), or into various other subcultures that don't use them "correctly" — because they're not pagans — and therefore distort their special significance. They've tried rituals and prayers, which is incredibly funny, since there's absolutely nothing "new" or "special" about praying or conducting rituals. They've tried such crazy, wild stuff as incense — shine on, you crazy pagans! — which, of course, they stole from Asia and the Middle East (the cradle of the modern mainstream religions) by way of the hippie movement (so they didn't even get it second-hand).

Nothing they've tried to do is "unique" or "special," none of it is "new" or "innovative" — and to those who don't buy into the feel-good mumbo-jumbo that is meant to support their practices, it's all pretty darn silly. So they've, uh, "lashed out" by taking a bunch of words and redefining them. Oh, the horror — they've got us now! Yes, this is just as meaningful, effective and engaging as a child playing "Today is Opposite Day!" (No it is.) And the usual meaning of that...is that somebody needs some attention.

Preempting the inevitable and ill-conceived woo reaction: no, we are not claiming that we are "unique" or "special." We'd like to think we're good people, rather intelligent, pretty talented, even rather easy on the eyes...and others may even agree with us. But that's irrelevant, and wouldn't make us anything out of the ordinary anyway, in a world full of well-intentioned, smart, skilled, and good-looking people. We are skeptics, yes, but the whole point of our brand of skeptical outlook is that we don't want to be unique or special in that regard. We want everybody to think critically, and be skeptical of claims with no evidentiary basis. And judging by the excellent assortment of people in our Usual Suspects, that doesn't make us unique or special either. So this isn't some sort of "you aren't, but we are" challenge to the pagans/witches/woos of every stripe; it's just a wake-up call to address their silly sense of uniqueness, as they all follow along with the other lemmings in their coven-herds.

Now, yes, this kind of discussion applies equally well to all believers — particularly those zealous fanatics in the "mainstream" religions — but this Rant is intended to focus on the pagans (we don't spend enough time pointing and laughing at them, it seems). And a big problem with pagans and many other woos — as evidenced by the ad that started this Rant off — is that their lack of acceptance into the mainstream seems to be all they need to claim "specialhood," and identify as "freethinkers." You know, as opposed to actually doing or thinking something original, interesting, or useful.

Would we immediately and automatically blow off a date with a pagan? Well, no, because we'd give anybody a chance to be considered an acquaintance, friend, or even more. But just as horrendously bad body odor might turn us off — even if the person behind the stench is a genuine gem — someone identified as "pagan" would have a strike against them in our eyes, simply due to our past experience and observations...it's bias, but not prejudice. If "freethinkermatch.com" is trying to establish an environment where people who really don't follow the crowd — when it comes to holding silly beliefs — would feel totally comfortable looking for a date or a mate, they're going to have to re-think their guest list. For now, we'll recommend sticking with a real freethinkers' dating site.


— • —
[  Filed under: % Bullshit  % Computers & the Internet  % Religion  ]

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/tpc-trkbk.cgi/429

Comments (20)

Bronze Dog, 2007.03.03 (Sat) 20:54 [Link] »

I'm usually okay with (pseudo)pagans, or at least less annoyed, compared with the mainstream fundies. They typically don't call for the lopping off of heretic heads, for instance.

But I do recall one bizarre thread from a long time back: Apparently a non-woo masseuse got caught at the wrong end of some newage/pseudopagan "massage fascists", and linked to some articles written by them: They talked about personal autonomy being an illusion. They touted the fact that the government approved of some licensing tests that featured spiritual questions with their newage/pseudopagan beliefs as the "correct" answers as official approval from The State in their religion, and evidence of its truth.

It was trippy.



Lord Runolfr, 2007.03.05 (Mon) 10:18 [Link] »

In defense of the pagans, I rather doubt they asked to be classified with the atheists and skeptics. In their own way, their every bit as flaky as the fundamentalist Christians, and they probably would be just as mystified at our demands for physical evidence of their woo beliefs.

No, I think that the operators of the Free Thinkers' Match Maker are to blame. They're probably just in this for the money, and they don't have enough sense to know the difference between Pagans and the other "free thinker" types on their list. Any non-Christian probably qualifies in their limited minds.

Speaking of which, pagan is arguably a technically correct term if you use the Merriam-Webster's definition, which includes anyone who recognizes more than one god as well as "irreligious or hedonistic" persons. Go figure.



TimmyAnn, 2007.03.05 (Mon) 12:07 [Link] »

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the pagans did ask to be included. It seems pretty clear that the people in charge of the dating service decided to include them.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.03.05 (Mon) 12:25 [Link] »

2 percenters, I disagree. I've heard the word "pagan" used differently.

I've used the word to describe myself. Why? Xians (at least here in NE) use that word like Muslims use "infidel". Basically if you are not xian, you are a pagan plain and simple (I can't help the fact they are retards). I really think after perusing that site that this is what they mean.

Several friends I've met from the UK use "pagan" to mean "I don't believe in bullshit" also.

I assume you all haven't heard it used that way, and I know that there are the loopy fruits out there that think pagan is some type of religion.

Anyone from the UK wanna back me up here?



Belinda, 2007.03.06 (Tue) 01:22 [Link] »

I'm not from the UK, but I'll back up Ryan's comment. Pagan is often used as a general term meaning not christian here in Australia.

However as the ad was most likely devised in the US, I doubt that they were using the definition that an Aussie or a Pom might apply to it. I suspect that they just threw pagan in as another one of those wacky things kids these days might believe in, along with being agnostic, free thinker or deist.



Blondin, 2007.03.06 (Tue) 16:13 [Link] »

Here's what dictionary.com says:
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
4. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
6. irreligious or hedonistic.

The entry for "heathen" says much the same, incidentally. I only mention it because I often use "heathen" when I have to state my religion. Perhaps I should stop doing that now that I know it may be synonymous with "pagan"; I'm definitely not polytheistic. I thought it just meant non-religious.



Jason Spicer, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 00:41 [Link] »

I've always considered "pagan" to be synonymous with "heathen" in certain contexts. Of course, it was just the other day that I learned that "infidel" refers to infidelity to the true religion. And I had to read about it in the paper. Not sure where my mind was on that one. The fact that both words started with the same seven letters should have been a big clue.

I kind of like the word "heathen", though, since it doesn't carry the connotations of wicker worship, and it isn't a negative, like infidel or atheist. But I'm a bit surprised that some guy named Heath hasn't tried to trademark it. Cuz, you know, there's so much money to be made in nonreligion.

Maybe that's the real problem with our point of view. There's no tithing required. We'd probably have zillions of fellow travelers if they had a shot at the good life of the telunvangelist.



Tom Foss, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 10:43 [Link] »

I think the big difference is between people who self-identify as "atheist/agnostic/other sort of godless" and people who self-identify as "pagan." We may recognize that the original use of the term "pagan" basically refers to "any non-Christian," but there are those who call themselves "pagan" as if it refers to a specific newage-y wiccaesque religion. And then there are newages and wiccas who adopt the term (a little more accurately, I suppose) as well.

There is a sort of positivity toward using the term; it's kind of like in the Simpsons episode where Homer yells at John for using the word 'queer': "I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!" Pagan used to be a derogatory term used by Christians to describe all those people who didn't buy into their delusions, and now all us people have reclaimed it (and infidel, and godless).

Except for the morons who think "pagan" is a religion, and not just a catch-all term. The Wiccans and their ilk may be flakier than dandruff, but at least, to some degree, they use the term correctly.

And all this is somewhat beside the point. All the groups in that list are "pagan" if you use the term correctly, so the only possible rationales for including it are because they think it's a religion, because they think it's a more limited catch-all term for all the godless who aren't already covered by their list, or because they think somehow atheists and skeptics want to date the flakiest of the flaky. I'm hoping for #2, myself.

Incidentally, objectivists? Sure, they don't technically believe in God, but they venerate to the point of near-deification a shitty writer who desperately wanted to be Nietzsche but didn't quite have the chops. The only real difference between the Objectivists and Scientologists is the lack of aliens.



Akusai, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 16:01 [Link] »
Incidentally, objectivists? Sure, they don't technically believe in God, but they venerate to the point of near-deification a shitty writer who desperately wanted to be Nietzsche but didn't quite have the chops.
Let's be clear, Tom: she didn't want to be Nietzsche, she wanted to be the Ubermensch, and she wanted to fuck Nietzsche, just so long as he was "The intellectual pinnacle of creation," so it was only "rational" for them to have sex.

And it's not shitty writing to end your book with a 60-page lecture. Not at all.



dikkii, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 17:08 [Link] »

I always found it interesting about Rand that she hated the term "libertarian" and libertarians play down the extent of her influence.

Apart from that, not really much difference I thought between "objectivism" and "libertarianism".

Kinda like how "anarcho-syndicalism" appears to be a cynical re-branding of "Marxism".



Belinda, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 17:31 [Link] »

I always found it interesting about Rand that she hated the term "libertarian" and libertarians play down the extent of her influence.

Apart from that, not really much difference I thought between "objectivism" and "libertarianism".

Huh? What the hell is libertarianism and libertarians? Or have I missed something?



dikkii, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 21:15 [Link] »

Belinda:

Libertarianism

Hope that this helps.



Jason Spicer, 2007.03.07 (Wed) 23:36 [Link] »

Man, I tried reading Atlas Shrugged, but gave up about a third of the way into it. What dreck. Rand had a flair for describing scenery, but her characters were misanthropic victims of arrested development. Here's a clue for any would-be novelist: Have a hero, or at least an anti-hero. Somebody who holds your interest, if not your sympathy. Peopling your story with hard-working dullards and dim-witted thugs isn't a recipe for literary greatness.

And every company in the book was named after its heroic founder. I got news for Rand. Capitalism is mostly about hiding behind the corporate veil in case you fuck up. And that usually means you name your company Amalgamated Dithering International, or some made-up word like Accenture.

Every page of Atlas Shrugged can essentially be reduced to "Communism is bad." I got more news for Rand. It's not just communists who loot. Pension funds (a very commie concept) are usually looted by died-in-the-wool capitalists.

Hmm. Maybe I should finish the damn thing, just so I can write up a full-length hatchet job.



Belinda, 2007.03.08 (Thu) 00:17 [Link] »

dikkii - Thanks, although it is probably something I should have found myself before opening my big fat mouth.

So I am guessing what you were originally referring to was libertarianism in the context of US politics, not in a broader world context. (Please correct me if I am wrong - I've certainly been wrong before and will be again in the near future).



Tom Foss, 2007.03.08 (Thu) 01:00 [Link] »
Man, I tried reading Atlas Shrugged, but gave up about a third of the way into it.
I haven't read any of her books, but for several months my friend had one of her books or another in his car pretty much constantly (he was researching for a couple of parodies he's writing). I'd pick up whichever book happened to be sharing my seat, and read some dialogue at random. It never failed to entertain.

My direct exposure to Rand comes from a play I attended. My cousin had a major role in her high school's production of Rand's masturbatory opus "The Night of January 16th." It was a courtroom drama where the defendant was the world's most obvious Rand stand-in, and the victim was, by all objectivist 'logic,' not actually dead. I recommend checking it out, because the awfulness and pretentiousness make it so absolutely perfect for high school performance.



dikkii, 2007.03.08 (Thu) 17:42 [Link] »
So I am guessing what you were originally referring to was libertarianism in the context of US politics, not in a broader world context. (Please correct me if I am wrong - I've certainly been wrong before and will be again in the near future).

Pretty much. Libertarians are pretty much non-existent where I live (Australia).



The Two Percent Company, 2007.03.08 (Thu) 21:09 [Link] »
Of course, it was just the other day that I learned that "infidel" refers to infidelity to the true religion. And I had to read about it in the paper. Not sure where my mind was on that one. The fact that both words started with the same seven letters should have been a big clue.

That one cracked us up, Jason — kind of like saying, "The word 'microbial' starts with M, I, C, R, O, B, I, A, L...."

You've all raised some excellent points (and mercilessly inflicted upon our brains some Ayn Rand imagery we really could have done without). Rockstar and Belinda, thanks for clearing up some alternate — but not flaky — perceptions of the word "pagan." Like any word in this crazy linguistic democracy, different folks can have different takes on it — analogous to different "political parties," in a way. The analogy expands and takes on a life of its own when you get to some of the particularly emotionally-charged words, but even at the relatively rational, calm level we're discussing, there's a power in definition that can create misunderstanding, confusion, and even conflict.

For our part, we haven't really heard "pagan" widely used to mean "non-religious," nor have we ever used it that way ourselves. From our observations of the word's usage and history, we're not sure why it even would mean that, though of course, usage defines definition in the long run — and Runolfr's point is well taken, in that there are apparently two entirely contradictory definitions of the word in the same dictionary entry, which Blondin helpfully provided (seriously, how can pagans be both polytheistic and irreligious? Parsing that one is like being six years old again and trying to wrap your head around "flammable" and "inflammable").

To make a quick point, though — we weren't really focusing on the definition of "pagan" in our Rant (more on our annoyance with the current crop of pagans themselves). We really made just a momentary reference to it (though we discussed woos tampering with words further, using "witch" as an example). Yes, we feel the modern woos who call themselves "pagan" have co-opted the word away from its other, more commonly understood meanings...but in so doing, they've largely created an entirely new commonly understood meaning of the word. By our count, that brings the grand total to at least four: Rockstar's and Belinda's "heathen" synonym (what we'll call Ironic Pagan), the fundamentalists' (and Holy Roman Empire's) insult toward "non-Christians" (Derogatory Pagan), the historical "primitive animist/pantheist" perspective (Classical Pagan), and the woos' self-applied label (Woo Pagan). And there's nothing wrong with this — ask somebody in the South for a "Coke," and they'll likely smile politely and ask you which soft drink you're specifically ordering. Colloquialisms are the "state senate" or "town council" version of the linguistic democracy we've described, and that's very cool — we like learning about new perspectives that differ from our own (before the woos jump in here — we did say "new").

But we have to admit we'd be pretty surprised if freethinkermatch.com had the Classical meaning in mind when they made their list, nor would it make sense for them to use the Derogatory one. Since we don't tend to think they were referring to the Ironic definition (though that's just our opinion), that leaves only the Woo Pagan, and we tend to think that most people (clever skeptics, formal scholars, and bigoted zealots notwithstanding) do think of the word "pagan" as new-agey woo these days, rather than "non-religious." If freethinkermatch.com was truly intending to use "pagan" as a synonym for "non-religious," then we have to question their approach, given that so many people — particularly the atheists and agnostics they're trying to entice — very likely don't agree with that definition (at least, not where we live — Rockstar's neighborhood seems to prefer the more sophisticated British take on the subject; but then, Rockstar's a pretty sophisticated guy). Seriously, though, go poke around the Intarwebs for a bit, and you can get a sense of what most people think of when they hear this word. Our searches for the term in question almost exclusively returned newage, Wicca garbage. To be clear, we aren't saying that no one uses the Ironic meaning of the word — we're saying that we believe that many, if not most, people use the Woo meaning (the Woo Pagans having quite successfully commandeered it). So either freethinkermatch.com stupidly chose to include woos in a list of freethinkers, or they stupidly used a term that, for too many of their target consumers, evokes an image of woo, even though they may have intended it to refer to the non-religious. Either way, it was a pretty stupid move on their part, judging by our reaction — shouldn't we practically epitomize their target consumer?

Tom Foss — damn, we weren't even paying attention to "Objectivist," because that "pagan" crap just jumped out at us! But yes, as a bunch of folks have mentioned so far in the ensuing discussion, the Rand-ians (not Randi-ans) are fruit loops of the highest order. Their "freethinker" credentials are especially laughable considering the incredibly despotic and hypocritical Ayn Rand, who kept her husband, her lover, and his wife under a sharp and heavy stiletto boot heel (her lover, perhaps, quite literally). Once again, these people are about as far from freethinkers as it's possible to get. Fuck, they adhere religiously to a fucking book — how much less of a freethinker can you be? (Hello, Scientologists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and, well, most world religions!) But the fact that freethinkermatch.com also included Objectivists on their list suggests that they certainly might have been using the term "pagan" in the Woo sense we imagined they were. After all, the two groups (Woo Pagans, Objectivists) are flip sides of the same banal, group-think coin.

As for the "taking back" of words, we agree, it's a smart and interesting idea — though it doesn't always work (and sometimes it backfires). As John Brownlee points out, the gay community has done an amazing job of systematically stripping all homosexual epithets of their power by using the words themselves, proudly and openly. Homer Simpson's reaction (to John Waters, if we remember correctly) is fairly representative of the powerlessness that homophobes and other bigots must feel when their accusatory "Fag!" is met by a smile and a nod...or worse, batted eyelids and puckered lips. Poor homophobes.

We do agree that a similar thing is happening with "infidel" and "godless" and "heathen," with regard to the irreligious, and even "pagan," from points of view like Rockstar's and Belinda's. And perhaps part of our annoyance lies in knowing that the woo-woo neo-pagans are "reclaiming" an epithet that we don't think even applied to them in the first place — though maybe, in both their minds and the minds of many others, it now does.

Finally, we really appreciate TimmyAnn's point, which is entirely correct — we weren't blaming the pagans for ending up on freethinkermatch.com's list (any more than we'd blame the Objectivists for appearing there) — that's the website's call, clearly. And, in fact, their appearance on that list wasn't the crux of our Rant (just as the definition of the word wasn't); it was simply the impetus for writing it, more just a symptom of what we view as a more general problem. The fact remains, as far as we're concerned, that today's self-identified "pagans" try to identify themselves as "freethinkers" (whether they use the word or not — we've observed that they tend to say "free spirit," which we artfully infer to mean that they acknowledge their lack of thought). Folks like freethinkermatch.com, who probably aren't up on the subject (they're running a dating site, not facilitating skeptical discussion), fall for this claim of "freethought" and throw these pagans into the mix — simply because they're "not mainstream." We think that it takes far, far more to be a "freethinker" than simply "bucking the trend," and these lemming-like, unoriginal pagans just don't qualify. That's our "complaint" or, more accurately, our conclusion — everything else is simply a part of our reasoning leading up to it.

Of course, we've probably just opened up a whole new can of worms on the definition of "freethinker." Damn. Let's not go there — we're sure you understand what we're referring to, even if that's not the word you would use for it. Just don't give us any of that "brights" crap.



Keith McComb, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 15:02 [Link] »

Came to this site for the first time today, and I apologise for thread necromancy, but I just wanted to point out the best description I've ever heard of those who follow Ayn Rand's philosophy - Randriods.

I remember reading a description by the late great Robert Anton Wilson talking about the time he had a chance to meet the woman, and dared to question her on a concept. He was cast out - excommunicated, if you will - and left in "disgrace". He later discovered that her attitudes were not so much a blinding individualism, but an addiction to amphetamines.



Jason Spicer, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 20:28 [Link] »

Oh. Amphetamine addiction would explain a lot about Atlas Shrugged. Like how the heroes never needed much sleep, and preferred work to people. Amazing how much literary criticism and philosophical debate can be dispensed with if you have the proper medical diagnosis.



IYce, 2007.05.31 (Thu) 22:41 [Link] »

And then we have an ad shown on daytime Australian t.v., for one of those SMS entertainment things the desperate and insecure need to guide their relationships. It offers the following pearl for justification for wasting $4.99 for a quick numerological analysis of a couple's first name - (voice over done by bimbo girl) "Numerologists AND Psychologists agree that names are important to a relationship."

I don't agree with the intellectional and rational use of the words pagan or heathen to label myself, since it tends to attract the bright and wide eyed star children- those words belong to them now. Infidel or heretic are much better words, since the believers still use those term for anyone who dares to question their ideology.




— • —


— • —

Enter your comment below

Name —
E-mail —
URL —
Remember me?
Subscribe to this Rant? (We'll notify you of new comments.)

Comments —
(Allowed HTML: a href, b, i, br, ol, ul, li, blockquote)



Please Post only once; if you do not see your comment immediately, Refresh the Rant page.
Your comment will autopreview above, if you have Javascript enabled.

Read the Two Percent Company's Comment Policy before diving into the deep end.


To subscribe to this Rant without commenting, fill in your e-mail address below:




|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]