Pat Condell

[Volenta]

I wonder what your opinion is about Pat Condell. I don't understand why people like this guy (especially don't get it why Dawkins supports him).

Although I can sympathize with certain things he's saying, I think the way he's presenting his case is on the extreme side and he does hold some really troubling ideas. He's really creating an us vs. them mentality, really loves to generalize, and I don't get the idea he cares about the wellbeing of Islamic people at all. I base this on things he said like "We don't give a damn about your feelings. Our feelings are more important."[1].
Also his rejection of left-wing politics[2] strikes me as troubling. He himself, who probably is a right-wing conservative, seems to be just as intolerant as a fundamentalist Muslim.
And of course there is the hypocrisy of abominating halal meat[3], but of course having no problem at all with other meat.

I don't like to say this often, but if islamophobia does exists, it really seems to apply to this man.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCXHPKhRCVg&t=4m7s
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85q6BOnwIAQ
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gYq2DQG1zI

[brimstoneSalad]

Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier.

I think what he's saying is mostly a matter of rhetoric, and I have a hard time criticizing anybody's choice of rhetoric (with rare exception) because I think that different people need different messages to reach them or inspire them.

Some need a tirade like TJ presents, some may need this kind of more eloquent smack-down, others might respond to a nice message full of flowers and rainbows. We all have our styles.

That said, I don't fully agree with his message, and I think that's a more important area of criticism which is less prone to matters of personal taste.

He's really creating an us vs. them mentality, really loves to generalize, and I don't get the idea he cares about the wellbeing of Islamic people at all. I base this on things he said like "We don't give a damn about your feelings. Our feelings are more important."[1].

I didn't get that sense from the links you provided. I took that to be about censorship; that he rejects the "it hurts my feelings therefore don't say it" view of many Muslims, and believes the "feeling" he has that free speech is essential is important.

When he says "our feelings", I think he's talking about the Western cultural paradigm of free speech and those things that we value, and not a "don't insult our queen because it hurts our feelings" kind of thing.
I think he phrased that poorly, because I only got what he meant from context and his tirade against the liberal students.

Also his rejection of left-wing politics[2] strikes me as troubling. He himself, who probably is a right-wing conservative, seems to be just as intolerant as a fundamentalist Muslim.

I didn't get a sense of that either. I took him as criticizing their behavior in preventing others from speaking (no matter what people were saying).
His political stance seems to be progressive itself, but he's vehemently against anything he sees as intimidation against free speech.

And yet, here's where he has a problem; he's telling the Muslims to shut up about their prophet, and behaving in a similar kind of way.

I don't think he sees that. He isn't wrong in telling Muslims to shut up if he wants, but he also can't criticize the students for employing similar tactics.

Free speech means being able to use any legal means to shout over others, or verbally intimidate them -- just not physically threaten them (which is something some Muslims do, but for the most part British Muslims aren't doing, rather just complaining which is within their rights).
You can't limit people's ability to tell other people to shut up without limiting free speech yourself.

And of course there is the hypocrisy of abominating halal meat[3], but of course having no problem at all with other meat.

He might be in Dawkins' boat there, where he disagrees with animal cruelty intellectually but supports it because he's too lazy or selfish to stop.
So, technically maybe not hypocritical.

I think he's trying to make the distinction in terms of causing unnecessary suffering for reasons of superstition, rather than for secular hedonistic pleasure.
As if superstition is somehow lower in priority than personal culinary pleasure. That is problematic.

But beyond that, he may be right that it could be slightly worse. However, that's only like one rapist criticizing another for not using condoms. Technically right, but an absurd place to take a moral stand when you take it in perspective. Maybe not hypocritical, but it is strange.

[Jebus]

I'm not going to plug anyone who eats meat, but I agree with everything he says about Islam.

[Volenta]

I didn't get that sense from the links you provided.

[...] and his tirade against the liberal students.

He's so misconstruing what liberalism/progressivism for lots and lots of people is. Some liberals are indeed very wrong about things like cultural relativism and not taking freedom of speech seriously, and that's a problem. But if you really don't get the sense that he's making generalizations about liberals (and actually also Islam for that matter), we maybe watched different videos.

I took that to be about censorship; that he rejects the "it hurts my feelings therefore don't say it" view of many Muslims, and believes the "feeling" he has that free speech is essential is important.

When he says "our feelings", I think he's talking about the Western cultural paradigm of free speech and those things that we value, and not a "don't insult our queen because it hurts our feelings" kind of thing.

I know the context, but I'm very sorry to say that it still doesn't do any good for that sentence. His style of speaking is indistinguishable from that of right-wing nationalism, and that's because he's actually in support of that (he supported the United Kingdom Independence Party).

I think he phrased that poorly

I'm glad you do. There is a big difference between valid religion criticism and opinion based on xenophobia and nationalism. I'm always trying to be very careful to not be interpreted as the latter one, because some opinions might look very similar. I'm not saying Condell is in that category, but he's just being reckless at some moments.

His political stance seems to be progressive itself, but he's vehemently against anything he sees as intimidation against free speech.

I hope he is, but then I don't understand his support for conservative populists. He's a fan of the dutch Geert Wilders who recently made some very racist appearances here in the Netherlands and ironically (because of his party's name Party for Freedom) propagates lots of freedom restrictions (like banning mosques, headscarves, etc.). I'm not holding Condell accountable for what Wilders is propagating, but if he's in support of people like this, I want nothing to do with him either.

And yet, here's where he has a problem; he's telling the Muslims to shut up about their prophet, and behaving in a similar kind of way.

I don't think he sees that. He isn't wrong in telling Muslims to shut up if he wants, but he also can't criticize the students for employing similar tactics.

Free speech means being able to use any legal means to shout over others, or verbally intimidate them -- just not physically threaten them (which is something some Muslims do, but for the most part British Muslims aren't doing, rather just complaining which is within their rights).
You can't limit people's ability to tell other people to shut up without limiting free speech yourself.

Precisely.

He might be in Dawkins' boat there, where he disagrees with animal cruelty intellectually but supports it because he's too lazy or selfish to stop.
So, technically maybe not hypocritical.

I think he's trying to make the distinction in terms of causing unnecessary suffering for reasons of superstition, rather than for secular hedonistic pleasure.
As if superstition is somehow lower in priority than personal culinary pleasure. That is problematic.

But beyond that, he may be right that it could be slightly worse. However, that's only like one rapist criticizing another for not using condoms. Technically right, but an absurd place to take a moral stand when you take it in perspective. Maybe not hypocritical, but it is strange.

After some research, he actually seems to be a vegetarian. So in that sense he's not hypocritical, but it is even more weird because he then most probably knows about the circumstances of the modern animal farming.

I'm not going to plug anyone who eats meat, but I agree with everything he says about Islam.

The point I tried to make is that people that normally don't care about animals are suddenly very upset about the suffering involved in ritual slaughter, and only restricted to ritual slaughter. The problem I have with this is that it's so clear that it's just targeted at religion and not so much animal suffering itself. It's like people are searching for justifications to see Muslims as inferior (lots of people don't even talk about Jewish ritual slaughter).

[brimstoneSalad]

He's so misconstruing what liberalism/progressivism for lots and lots of people is. Some liberals are indeed very wrong about things like cultural relativism and not taking freedom of speech seriously, and that's a problem. But if you really don't get the sense that he's making generalizations about liberals (and actually also Islam for that matter), we maybe watched different videos.

Oh, he's definitely making generalizations, but we all do that constantly. There is another way of approaching it where you're very careful to add "but they're not all like that" to everything you say, and it's a matter of personal style and rhetoric. I'm sure he knows they're not all like that. But he's generalizing for effect.

His rhetoric is a more mild and intellectual version of TJ, in a sense. It's not necessarily all literal. He's not making a fully intellectual argument.

I know the context, but I'm very sorry to say that it still doesn't do any good for that sentence. His style of speaking is indistinguishable from that of right-wing nationalism, and that's because he's actually in support of that (he supported the United Kingdom Independence Party).

Well, I don't know anything about that. Sorry. Politics are a bit out of my scope.

I'm glad you do. There is a big difference between valid religion criticism and opinion based on xenophobia and nationalism. I'm always trying to be very careful to not be interpreted as the latter one, because some opinions might look very similar. I'm not saying Condell is in that category, but he's just being reckless at some moments.

Oh, certainly, and I can see how people would take it as that. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, though, since I can kind of understand where he's coming from with his rhetoric.

I hope he is, but then I don't understand his support for conservative populists. He's a fan of the dutch Geert Wilders who recently made some very racist appearances here in the Netherlands and ironically (because of his party's name Party for Freedom) propagates lots of freedom restrictions (like banning mosques, headscarves, etc.). I'm not holding Condell accountable for what Wilders is propagating, but if he's in support of people like this, I want nothing to do with him either.

I'd have to understand more of what's going on, which I don't. He might be Islamophobic. But there also might be legitimate reasons to be; the encroach of Islamic ideas in politics can be concerning.

Is there a real risk of loss of democratic freedoms due to the growing Islamic voting block? Democracy and secular government can be voted away.
Would banning mosques and headscarves lessen this risk? Is the loss of freedom that cause justified by the loss of freedom it prevents?

They're complicated questions.
I try not to take stands on political issues like these where the facts aren't really clear. I'm not ideological enough to say 'freedom is freedom and that's that', which is pretty much what's required to not need more facts. I understand that some people are. Ideology is why I don't like politics.

After some research, he actually seems to be a vegetarian. So in that sense he's not hypocritical, but it is even more weird because he then most probably knows about the circumstances of the modern animal farming.

Oh, hmm. Maybe he became vegetarian after that video?

But anyway, like I said, halal slaughter may be slightly more cruel. There is room for a rapist to criticize another rapist for not using a condom, as bizarre as it may seem.
There is bad, and then there's worse, and bad can generally criticize worse.

[Volenta]

Oh, hmm. Maybe he became vegetarian after that video?

It seems he's a vegetarian for a long time:
http://www.patcondell.net/about-me/vegetarian/

[brimstoneSalad]

Oh, hmm. Maybe he became vegetarian after that video?

It seems he's a vegetarian for a long time:
http://www.patcondell.net/about-me/vegetarian/

Hmm, seems he is vegan. Well, great for him. The video just sounded like he was eating meat, since he was talking about halal and it doesn't make any sense for vegetarian food to be halal or not because it all is by nature, but he also talked about that a bit.

I also got from that, he's a bit of a comedian. So, you can't necessarily take everything he says literally. Like I said, I think there's a lot of rhetoric in there, and now certainly comedic exaggeration for effect.

[EquALLity]

I know the context, but I'm very sorry to say that it still doesn't do any good for that sentence. His style of speaking is indistinguishable from that of right-wing nationalism, and that's because he's actually in support of that (he supported the United Kingdom Independence Party).

I'm a bit late here, but just for the record, he's made some videos on that. Here's a recent one where he explains why he votes for UKIP. It looks like his main reason for supporting the party is because he really wants out of the European Union.

Quoting the transcript from another:

Of course I don't agree with all UKIP policies any more than I do with any other party, so no, I'm not voting for climate change scepticism or for homeopathy or for antidisestablishmentarianism - try saying that with a mouthful of marbles. I'm voting for something that isn't on offer from any of the other parties because it's a bit too democratic for them and because they know very well what the outcome would be. I'm voting for a principle that would resonate with the authors of the American Constitution, one of the greatest documents ever written, the right of the people to decide who governs them, a right that has been taken away from us without permission, and that I want to see restored.

[EquALLity]

WTF?

IMO, Pat Condell used to be very reasonable (and from my understanding not a bigot), but I think he's slowly changed into one. Maybe because he supports UKIP, originally just supporting getting the UK out of the EU, but maybe he feels the need to justify UKIPs other policies etc.. since he votes in favor of UKIP and advocates for it, and maybe it's slowly made him become this way.

UPDATE:
Oh, god. Not Benghazi... Ugh.

[Volenta]

WTF?

IMO, Pat Condell used to be very reasonable (and from my understanding not a bigot), but I think he's slowly changed into one. Maybe because he supports UKIP, originally just supporting getting the UK out of the EU, but maybe he feels the need to justify UKIPs other policies etc.. since he votes in favor of UKIP and advocates for it, and maybe it's slowly made him become this way.

UPDATE:
Oh, god. Not Benghazi... Ugh.

He's going very far in support of UKIP. Even as far as to hypocritically announce he doesn't like comedians who are joking about UKIP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdGYA8HmcWM
The reason it's hypocritical, is because he himself is full of hating against Islam while saying you absolutely shouldn't be offended or anything, because it's "free speech".

I'm not sure why you though of him as being reasonable, but okay. Here are more reasons not to like him:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pat_Condell (Speaking in favor of Eurabia theory... come on...)