Glenn Beck on Penn Jillette's new book about atheism


Recommended Posts

Isn't crappy language part of the Vegas low-brow cultural thingy? Maybe P and T merely deliver it to America without any distillation. Johnny Carson in Vegas was much more risque than he ever was on his TV show, so I read. (I've never been to any Vegas show.)

(I have a Las Vegas regret: the silver dollars I got there in1959, which I spent soon after, are worth $30 today.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do think that moral judgment is a big deal, but my approach is simply to say what I think and move on.

What a relief! Egad! Imagine how unspeakably tedious it would be if he said what he thought and then stuck around! I mean, the constant, Phil-like sniffing and preening about the silly word taboos first introduced into our language by William the Conqueror is tiresome enough! That we should have to endure more? Perish the thought!

JR

When William died they let the body lay around for a few days and it swelled up. He wouldn't fit into his stone coffin, so they pushed and pushed and he burst open spewing putrefaction all over the inside of the church.

--Brant

sorry to hijack the thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . spewing putrefaction all over the inside of the church.

Sounds just like Dennis, doesn't it? He was probably just saying what he thought. And this was the first occasion on which Dennis had visited a church? He must have been morally outraged. You know how he gets.

JR

Edited by Jeff Riggenbach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil-like sniffing and preening about the silly word taboos first introduced into our language by William the Conqueror is tiresome enough!

I thought he spoke French, and that we mainly have him to thank for the linguistic distinction between animal names and the names of the food that comes from them. Example: swine vs. pork, or cow vs. beef. Unlike in, say, German where they say schweine for a pig on a farm, and schweinefleisch for pig meat on your plate in a restaurant.

So, now which word taboos were introduced into English by William the Conqueror? Inquiring minds want to know.

I want to know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil-like sniffing and preening about the silly word taboos first introduced into our language by William the Conqueror is tiresome enough!

I thought he spoke French, and that we mainly have him to thank for the linguistic distinction between animal names and the names of the food that comes from them. Example: swine vs. pork, or cow vs. beef. Unlike in, say, German where they say schweine for a pig on a farm, and schweinefleisch for pig meat on your plate in a restaurant.

So, now which word taboos were introduced into English by William the Conqueror? Inquiring minds want to know.

I want to know!

When William took over the royal court in England, French became the language of the court, and, by extension, of the upper classes, the "refined," educated classes, of England. From that point forward, ordinary Anglo-Saxon words (words of German rather than French origin), including words for biological functions which had never been thought objectionable before in England, were considered "vulgar" and "lower class." It was in this period that "fuck" and "shit" became "obscenities" while the Latin-derived words for exactly the same things - "copulate," for example, and "excrement" - were still entirely acceptable in "polite" society. This crude linguistic nationalism is the origin of what ignoramuses of today (for example, Dennis Hardin) think of as "dirty words" or "bad language."

JR

Edited by Jeff Riggenbach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil-like sniffing and preening about the silly word taboos first introduced into our language by William the Conqueror is tiresome enough!

I thought he spoke French, and that we mainly have him to thank for the linguistic distinction between animal names and the names of the food that comes from them. Example: swine vs. pork, or cow vs. beef. Unlike in, say, German where they say schweine for a pig on a farm, and schweinefleisch for pig meat on your plate in a restaurant.

So, now which word taboos were introduced into English by William the Conqueror? Inquiring minds want to know.

I want to know!

When William took over the royal court in England, French became the language of the court, and, by extension, of the upper classes, the "refined," educated classes, of England. From that point forward, ordinary Anglo-Saxon words (words of German rather than French origin), including words for biological functions which had never been thought objectionable before in England, were considered "vulgar" and "lower class." It was in this period that "fuck" and "shit" became "obscenities" while the Latin-derived words for exactly the same things - "copulate," for example, and "excrement" - were still entirely acceptable in "polite" society. This crude linguistic nationalism is the origin of what ignoramuses of today (for example, Dennis Hardin) think of as "dirty words" or "bad language."

JR

Well, now that we're educated, Jeff, they're still dirty words. WTF!--we can't go back in time, but it seems you can! That's individualism, afterall. And I didn't know there weren't really any dirty words at all! ("Minarchist"?)

--Brant

back to the future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Michael suggested it was wrong to morally evaluate anyone who advocates 'live and let live.'

Dennis,

What suggestion?

I'll let Adam speak for himself, but as for me, this just didn't happen.

I stated my own positive evaluation and that's all. And in the opening post, I had some fun with the stereotypes of Beck and Jillette do not allow for them to support each other on anything, yet they did (and do) on a fundamental freedom principle.

A more careful reading of my posts will generally reveal that I am pretty clear at saying what I mean.

If you want to disagree with me on something, it would be helpful (and far more rational) to disagree with something I actually wrote and believe in rather than something made up like your observation above.

Michael

Michael,

Okay. Here is what you ‘actually wrote’ in response to my post in which I negatively evaluated Penn Jillette for his toilet-talk nihilism and his mistreatment of NB:

The union of Beck and Jillette, however clunky, speaks to their adherence to a single political principle on which both agree: the right of each individual to believe or disbelieve as he or she sees fit.

They don't just say it, either. They do it.

I agree with that principle and I admire people who implement principles like that. I don't have to agree with them on other issues to recognize the one where they are consistent and admirable. Basically, I see them supporting the even wider principle that each person has the right to (and should take responsibility for) his or her own thinking from the ground up.

Both Beck and Jillette have large numbers of fans. I seriously doubt you will find either becoming a dictator or control freak.

You answered my moral evaluation with your statement that you “don’t have to agree with them on other issues” if you admire them for adhering to the ‘live and let live’ principle. In other words, those other things I mentioned are not ethical concerns for you. They’re just ‘disagreements.’

If that’s not a statement of moral neutrality in regard to Penn’s general code of conduct--including his treatment of NB--it’s a reasonable facsimile.

If that’s not what you meant—and you want to be rational--you are the one who has the responsibility to communicate more clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He claims to admire Ayn Rand, and then uses his TV show to crap on one of the most prominent exponents of her ideas.

I agree that at the very least, that show was terribly researched. Blaming Branden for the faults of a movement that was influenced by many other people's ideas is indeed boneheaded especially since it was not his ideas that got applied in an institutional context (the schools etc. didn't use Branden's concepts of self-esteem at all). But the show needed a 'villain' and Branden acts somewhat pretentious so the decision was made to pin it on him.

You're a therapist; you know precisely the flaws in the self-esteem movement and how many outlandish claims are made by people in it. That episode of Bullshit made a reasonable critique of the movement in general; it simply targeted the wrong person. You know, how Ayn Rand blamed all the evils of German Idealism on Kant.

Do I consider that a good thing? Absolutely not. But I don't think its absolute proof they are nihilists. They're entertainers, their job is to lampoon and mock and offend.

I should also add that I've seen the episode in question just recently; Branden is actually treated relatively gently compared to the other people involved. Also, the show never actually provided a citation for Branden's claim that self-esteem caused pretty much every evil; I think its fair to say that Branden's actual claims were much less hyperbolic.

Andrew,

Penn claims to be a libertarian and to like Ayn Rand, and yet he demonstrates such cavalier disregard for accuracy in regard to a man who has played such an important role in both movements? He’s a comedian, so it’s okay for him to "lampoon" a man's life's work--a man who has worked so hard for so long and achieved so much--on national TV? (Compared to NB, Penn is the equivalent of a snot-nosed brat throwing spit wads at Einstein.) And you want to give him a pass and say the program was just “badly researched”?

I find that hard to believe.

Penn uses foul language as a substitute for cleverness and spits on everything and everybody, including things he professes to hold dear. If that isn’t nihilism, we might as well dispense with the term, because nothing is.

I regard such unintelligible behavior and such “commentary” as “emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.”

Its not unintelligible. Its easily understood; you just need to stop treating it as serious philosophical digressions and see it for what it is. Its comedy.

As I said before, comedy is not an excuse for indecency.

If you don’t, then we will just agree to disagree.

And we shall.

You got that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's not a statement of moral neutrality in regard to Penn's general code of conduct--including his treatment of NB--it's a reasonable facsimile.

Dennis,

Two questions:

1. How does not chiming in on someone's hatred translate into suggesting it is "wrong to morally evaluate anyone who advocates 'live and let live'"?

2. How does totally ignoring a moral principle that is translated into a right--i.e., freedom of religion--translate in Dennis-speak into being a moral crusader fighting for his values?

You want to push me? OK, you pushed.

Let me be clear. I like you. But I refuse to be intimidated into hating just because you hate--and into ignoring what I see clearly just because you refuse to see what I see.

I have not evaluated your choices, nor evaluated you, but I have refused to chime in on your spite. You, however, have said several derogatory things about me because I refuse to hate like you do.

Are you really that insecure?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't crappy language part of the Vegas low-brow cultural thingy? Maybe P and T merely deliver it to America without any distillation. Johnny Carson in Vegas was much more risque than he ever was on his TV show, so I read. (I've never been to any Vegas show.)

(I have a Las Vegas regret: the silver dollars I got there in1959, which I spent soon after, are worth $30 today.)

--Brant

Penn and Teller's Vegas show lacks vulgar language. At the performance that my wife and I went to last year, Penn talked about the issue, saying that they even generally avoided saying the name of their Bullshit! program while on stage at the Rio. Vegas is much more of a family destination than it used to be.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penn claims to be a libertarian and to like Ayn Rand, and yet he demonstrates such cavalier disregard for accuracy in regard to a man who has played such an important role in both movements?

We don't know that Penn showed "cavalier disregard." It's possible that he based his views on an interview in which Branden performed very poorly and came across as supporting ideas which he doesn't. We'd have to know more about what happened during the interview before we could come to the judgments that you appear to be eager to leap to.

He’s a comedian, so it’s okay for him to "lampoon" a man's life's work--a man who has worked so hard for so long and achieved so much--on national TV? (Compared to NB, Penn is the equivalent of a snot-nosed brat throwing spit wads at Einstein.) And you want to give him a pass and say the program was just “badly researched”?

Oh, so it's okay for you to be "indecent" by using terms like "snot-nosed" and "spit wads." How is your talking about snot and spit any less vulgar than others talking about fucking and jacking off?

Anyway, it's possible that the Bullshit! program wasn't "researched" at all, and that Penn and Teller and their staff were expecting the guests themselves to provide the needed information during their interviews, and that Branden failed to deliver. I highly doubt that people who produce television programs like Bullshit! familiarize themselves with each of their guests views by reading every book and article that they've written.

Penn uses foul language as a substitute for cleverness and spits on everything and everybody, including things he professes to hold dear. If that isn’t nihilism, we might as well dispense with the term, because nothing is.

I disagree. He uses "foul language" to enhance his cleverness. And he doesn't "spit" on what he holds dear. He just doesn't revere anyone enough to overlook their vices. In other words, he seems to admire people's admirable qualities while at the same time making fun of the aspects of their personalities which he feels deserve to be made fun of.

As I said before, comedy is not an excuse for indecency.

How about if comedy is used as an excuse to talk about snot and spit. Would that be okay?

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across a review of a recent Lee Siegel publication (NYT July 29) that 'clicks' with this discussion:

"Are You Serious? How to Be True and Get Real in the Age of Silly."

It seems the book invokes the replacement of earnestness, with that of self-irony. (Which is a long-time gripe of my own.)

So, the Age of Silly.

According to the reviewer, Siegel believes that "Politicians used to be serious, but they abdicated that role to journalists who exposed political deceit during the Vietnam War. In turn, during the Iraq war...journalists abandoned the seriousness racket, bequeathing it to comedians."

She adds "Think Saturday Night Live. Think Jon Stewart. Think Stephen Colbert."

(Ayn Rand would of course say it was firstly the philosophers who abdicated...)

This line in Siegel's words, is a gem: "...the earnest performance of seriousness in the absence of both genuine seriousness and real laughter."

(Very true for me.)

Followed by: "Think Keith Olbermann. Think Glenn Beck. Think, in a different key altogether, Oprah."

No mention of Penn and Teller, though. I can't think why not.

True, I've had little experience of P and T, but from what I saw "the absence of both genuine seriousness and real laughter" is apt.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave it to the lame leftie to start talking about vomit when people are having fun...

Yeah. I mean, first off, if you are planning your meals with a vomiting future in mind, well . . .

Some things are definitely better than others. You have to consider smell, texture, how it will combine with the digestive acids. If you think you will end up doing it out of a car window, be courteous to your driver in advance and ask him what color flames he would like on the side.

If you really want to amuse yourself, load up on a lot of multicolored jelly beans--at least that way you can put on a nice Technicolor show.

A couple of offhand tips:

1. For winter engagements. If you are wearing an arctic parka, make sure it is not zipped up to your nose--unzip to at least the neck level, or everything goes internal, and containment issues will occur. This was proven at a Trent Reznor concert I attended in the late eighties. The ride home cost me a few friends. You might think you are helping, you are not.

2. No White Castle burgers (sliders). These are for AFTER--they are only used to absorb alcohol post-engagement. If you front-end it, expect results as outlined in point one.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's not a statement of moral neutrality in regard to Penn's general code of conduct--including his treatment of NB--it's a reasonable facsimile.

Dennis,

Two questions:

1. How does not chiming in on someone's hatred translate into suggesting it is "wrong to morally evaluate anyone who advocates 'live and let live'"?

2. How does totally ignoring a moral principle that is translated into a right--i.e., freedom of religion--translate in Dennis-speak into being a moral crusader fighting for his values?

You want to push me? OK, you pushed.

Let me be clear. I like you. But I refuse to be intimidated into hating just because you hate--and into ignoring what I see clearly just because you refuse to see what I see.

I have not evaluated your choices, nor evaluated you, but I have refused to chime in on your spite. You, however, have said several derogatory things about me because I refuse to hate like you do.

Are you really that insecure?

Michael

So now moral judgment constitutes “hate.” Wow. Unbelievable.

That’s one of the common liberal criticisms of Ann Coulter--that she engages in “hate speech.” It’s bullshit when they say it about her and the same applies here. When did I ever say I hated anybody? I made a moral judgment about Penn Jillette—and expressed confusion about why others want to look the other way when we’re talking about the moral treachery of trashing a great man (NB) on national TV. That is not “hate.” Hatred is an emotion, not an act of judgment. Liberals don’t know the difference, but it’s a very bizarre thing to hear an Objectivist confuse the two.

“You want to push me? Okay, you pushed.” That sounds a lot like intimidation.

Since when did voicing my honest opinion about something constitute “pushing” anybody? And why the hell would I want to “push” you or anyone else? This is not some stupid game we’re playing. I didn’t engage in any personal attack on anyone. My only concern has been to get at the truth. I don’t play games.

Apparently I have been given the choice of either agreeing with your viewpoint on this matter or getting banned or moderated.

It’s been a good run, guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when did voicing my honest opinion about something constitute "pushing" anybody?

Dennis,

You didn't just voice your "honest opinion" about "something." And you didn't just express confusion. You voiced derogatory stuff about me and told me what I should do.

Apparently I have been given the choice of either agreeing with your viewpoint on this matter or getting banned or moderated.

I am beginning to believe you have a reading disability.

You keep reading stuff into situations--and people--that is simply not there.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[to Dennis Hardin] I am beginning to believe you have a reading disability.

You're onto something here, Michael - something fundamental. Actually, it's much more than merely a reading problem, but the fact that you've noticed this shows that you've taken a big step toward understanding the whole truth.

Cryptically (and nihilistically, of course)

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's not a statement of moral neutrality in regard to Penn's general code of conduct--including his treatment of NB--it's a reasonable facsimile.

Dennis,

Two questions:

1. How does not chiming in on someone's hatred translate into suggesting it is "wrong to morally evaluate anyone who advocates 'live and let live'"?

2. How does totally ignoring a moral principle that is translated into a right--i.e., freedom of religion--translate in Dennis-speak into being a moral crusader fighting for his values?

You want to push me? OK, you pushed.

Let me be clear. I like you. But I refuse to be intimidated into hating just because you hate--and into ignoring what I see clearly just because you refuse to see what I see.

I have not evaluated your choices, nor evaluated you, but I have refused to chime in on your spite. You, however, have said several derogatory things about me because I refuse to hate like you do.

Are you really that insecure?

Michael

So now moral judgment constitutes "hate." Wow. Unbelievable.

That's one of the common liberal criticisms of Ann Coulter--that she engages in "hate speech." It's bullshit when they say it about her and the same applies here. When did I ever say I hated anybody? I made a moral judgment about Penn Jillette—and expressed confusion about why others want to look the other way when we're talking about the moral treachery of trashing a great man (NB) on national TV. That is not "hate." Hatred is an emotion, not an act of judgment. Liberals don't know the difference, but it's a very bizarre thing to hear an Objectivist confuse the two.

"You want to push me? Okay, you pushed." That sounds a lot like intimidation.

Since when did voicing my honest opinion about something constitute "pushing" anybody? And why the hell would I want to "push" you or anyone else? This is not some stupid game we're playing. I didn't engage in any personal attack on anyone. My only concern has been to get at the truth. I don't play games.

Apparently I have been given the choice of either agreeing with your viewpoint on this matter or getting banned or moderated.

It's been a good run, guys.

You've expressed your opinion about P and T and NB. I agree with much of it. I don't think they are "nihilistic." I did get the feeling they had prior issues with NB that had little or nothing to do with self esteem. Regardless, isn't it time to go on to another subject? Don't forget that in spite of your high opinion of NB, he's Objectivist-movement controversial. Self-esteem is also controversial if by that we mean a "movement." I hate that; it's so collectivist in its implications qua human psychology. It isn't politics where movement this or movement that can all be legitimate.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've expressed your opinion about P and T and NB. I agree with much of it. I don't think they are "nihilistic." I did get the feeling they had prior issues with NB that had little or nothing to do with self esteem. Regardless, isn't it time to go on to another subject? Don't forget that in spite of your high opinion of NB, he's Objectivist-movement controversial. Self-esteem is also controversial if by that we mean a "movement." I hate that; it's so collectivist in its implications qua human psychology. It isn't politics where movement this or movement that can all be legitimate.

--Brant

I appreciate the support, Brant. I'm not 100% sure that's what you intended to convey, but that's how I'm taking it.

Thanks.

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're onto something here, Michael - something fundamental. Actually, it's much more than merely a reading problem, but the fact that you've noticed this shows that you've taken a big step toward understanding the whole truth.

Jeff,

I agree with this except for the part that I've "taken a big step" just now. I took that step a long time ago.

I'll show you. Consider this.

Dennis is one of the good guys. So are you. The fact that neither of you sees it with respect to the other is part of that "something fundamental."

:)

That's almost a quip, but it's also quite serious.

(Anyway, I'm an equal-opportunity pisser-offer... :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's got to be the most pukey interchange I've seen here in years. I can't tell if it is two weasels fighting in a burlap bag, or maybe someone picking over a dinner with a toothpick. Fuck's sake, ladies--your man boobies are sticking out.

rde

You Know Who You Are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny.

I have supported Dennis and tangled with him. And I have supported Jeff and tangled with him.

Maybe I should just do one side or the other. Whaddya think?

For some reason I just can't seem to get with the program...

:)

Michael

Maestro, once again, as I have suggested as proper mediation many times before over the years, there is no alternative but for them other than to be on the grounds of honor at dawn, replete with thongs, and settle this the way true men due: Greco Roman-style wrestling. You are the ref--get you striped shirt all ready.

rde

Puking rainbows

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've expressed your opinion about P and T and NB. I agree with much of it. I don't think they are "nihilistic." I did get the feeling they had prior issues with NB that had little or nothing to do with self esteem. Regardless, isn't it time to go on to another subject? Don't forget that in spite of your high opinion of NB, he's Objectivist-movement controversial. Self-esteem is also controversial if by that we mean a "movement." I hate that; it's so collectivist in its implications qua human psychology. It isn't politics where movement this or movement that can all be legitimate.

--Brant

I appreciate the support, Brant. I'm not 100% sure that's what you intended to convey, but that's how I'm taking it.

Thanks.

Dennis

Well, I think Quentin Tarantino is nihilistic--Oliver Stone not--but I'm not getting into a wrastlin' match with anyone over that! (The best contemporary director is Ron Howard, but Stone is a visual genius.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've expressed your opinion about P and T and NB. I agree with much of it. I don't think they are "nihilistic." I did get the feeling they had prior issues with NB that had little or nothing to do with self esteem. Regardless, isn't it time to go on to another subject? Don't forget that in spite of your high opinion of NB, he's Objectivist-movement controversial. Self-esteem is also controversial if by that we mean a "movement." I hate that; it's so collectivist in its implications qua human psychology. It isn't politics where movement this or movement that can all be legitimate.

--Brant

I appreciate the support, Brant. I'm not 100% sure that's what you intended to convey, but that's how I'm taking it.

Thanks.

Dennis

Well, I think Quentin Tarantino is nihilistic--Oliver Stone not--but I'm not getting into a wrastlin' match with anyone over that! (The best contemporary director is Ron Howard, but Stone is a visual genius.)

--Brant

No, it has been and always will be Roger Corman. swamp_women_poster_03.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a moral judgment about Penn Jillette—and expressed confusion about why others want to look the other way when we’re talking about the moral treachery of trashing a great man (NB) on national TV.

Dennis, I'm wondering if Ayn Rand qualifies as a "nihilist" by your standards. Earlier, you said that Penn "spits on everything and everybody, including things he professes to hold dear," and, "If that isn’t nihilism, we might as well dispense with the term, because nothing is." Well, Rand "spat" on "everything and everybody," including things she professed to hold dear (pardon me if I'm being "indecent," but I'd say that Rand went even farther and "pissed" and "shat" on certain things). Are you familiar with the hateful, bullshit judgments she made about some of the greatest thinkers and creators that the world has ever known, including those whom she recognized as great?

What do you think of the fact that Rand very publicly misrepresented Kant's views in the same way than Penn misrepresented Branden's? She "spat" on Kant despite the fact that he was a great thinker, and despite the fact that she had read very little, if any, of his work. She called him "evil" (in fact, she called him the most evil man in mankind's history) and blamed him for later political events that he and his ideas had nothing to do with. Also, she accused him of being the "father" of the type of art that she disliked, when it would be much closer to the truth to claim that he was the "father" of Romanticism and, more specifically, of her art and her aesthetic "sense of life." So, shouldn't she be condemned for having done such poor and minimal research on Kant before publicly trashing him? Shouldn't her "spitting" on such great men count as "moral treachery" and "nihilism" by your standards?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now