The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

[Shane Falco]

Fuckin' Jimmy Fallon wouldn't lead to a discussion like this!

 

Naw but he can play egg Russian roulette with the best of 'em!

[Phil]

Fuckin' Jimmy Fallon wouldn't lead to a discussion like this!

 

Is Jimmy Fallon even an atheist? I didn't understand that line from Hemant Mehta's article.

[Dave]

Atheists have plenty of platforms on television. Scientific programming. Documentaries. Weather. News. Entertainment. Sports. The vast majority of TV isn't theologically based. So I'm not really sure what atheist viewpoint you feel isn't getting represented.

 

Maher and even the more eloquent and less abrasive anti-theists are a different animal. They're not informing on atheism or common views of atheists. They may include some of that, but what they're doing is trying to argue against theism. Which, itself, is a fine pursuit, but call it what it is. And yes, Anti-theism is under represented on TV. But I'd argue that between Maher and no-one on the Anti-theist front, that movement is better off with no one. Maher is everything that's wrong with Anti-theists. He thinks he can bully people out of beliefs he doesn't agree with. All that does is provide ammunition to theists. They can point to Maher, call him the champion of atheists and explain how atheists are verbally abusive and closed-minded. That makes the work that someone like Harris does more difficult.

 

Finally, I don't think you're a First Amendment fundamentalist at all. Because I don't think you understand the goal of the First Amendment. The goal is to let the market place of ideas determine what concepts are good and which are bad through open and unfettered speech. The college students/professors Maher and pals derisively refer to as the "Regressive Left" are practicing their First Amendment rights and that should be championed by a "First Amendment fundamentalist". Instead, they're insulted for having a different opinion.

 

You see the failing here? Attack the speech, not the speaker. Maher doesn't do that. Because his own ideas aren't well formed enough to stand on their own AND make him and HBO money. So he resorts to his monkey in the zoo tactic of throwing his own verbal feces. Ultimately, that's what his audience is buying. The shit show.

[Phil]

Atheists have plenty of platforms on television. Scientific programming. Documentaries. Weather. News. Entertainment. Sports. The vast majority of TV isn't theologically based. So I'm not really sure what atheist viewpoint you feel isn't getting represented.

 

These aren't atheist platforms. They're simply not theistic platforms. That's not really the same thing. An atheist platform needs to be actively promoting atheism, the way a theistic platform would actively promote theism. If you are talking about atheism as the default position, then sure, they're "atheist", but only in the sense that they aren't directly promoting theism. Which doesn't really make sense in this type of dialogue. By that logic, literally anything that isn't actively promoting theism is promoting atheism, and I just don't think that's true. I mean, would you call an episode of Curious Geroge an atheist program? Or just a children's cartoon geared toward learning?

 

Maher and even the more eloquent and less abrasive anti-theists are a different animal. They're not informing on atheism or common views of atheists. They may include some of that, but what they're doing is trying to argue against theism. Which, itself, is a fine pursuit, but call it what it is. And yes, Anti-theism is under represented on TV. But I'd argue that between Maher and no-one on the Anti-theist front, that movement is better off with no one. Maher is everything that's wrong with Anti-theists. He thinks he can bully people out of beliefs he doesn't agree with. All that does is provide ammunition to theists. They can point to Maher, call him the champion of atheists and explain how atheists are verbally abusive and closed-minded. That makes the work that someone like Harris does more difficult.

 

There are many ways to skin a cat. Some are just more "acceptable" than others.

 

I'd argue Maher has many of the same qualities Hitchens did regarding anti-theist positions, and Hitchens is widely regarded as one of the fiercist anti-theists in the last century. What divorces both of them from Harris is delivery. Not a lack of holding people accountable for their beliefs. The reason I think Harris is a better voice to prop up is because he comes across more calmly, and less "angry" in his tone, even though at the same time I'd argue his actual message is really no different than Hitchens' was.

 

Finally, I don't think you're a First Amendment fundamentalist at all. Because I don't think you understand the goal of the First Amendment. The goal is to let the market place of ideas determine what concepts are good and which are bad through open and unfettered speech.

 

Correct. Which I completely support.

 

The college students/professors Maher and pals derisively refer to as the "Regressive Left" are practicing their First Amendment rights and that should be championed by a "First Amendment fundamentalist". Instead, they're insulted for having a different opinion.

 

You mistake insulting/criticizing bad ideas with wanting to take away the right of the person who believes them from being allowed to speak.

 

Kim Davis has every right to boast that homosexuality is a sin against God, and when she does, I have every right to call her an idiot for thinking that. Or in a less combative situaton, when Regressive Leftists want to shout down Ayaan Hirsi Ali from being able to speak at college campuses becuase they think she insults Islam, they should have every right to voice that opinion. And I should have every right to challenge it for it's trampling of free speech rights.

 

You see the failing here? Attack the speech, not the speaker. Maher doesn't do that. Because his own ideas aren't well formed enough to stand on their own AND make him and HBO money. So he resorts to his monkey in the zoo tactic of throwing his own verbal feces. Ultimately, that's what his audience is buying. The shit show.

 

I don't disagree here. I have a lot of issues with Maher (the vaccine thing most especially), but until something better comes along, I personally champion having some anti-theist voice in the mainstream.

 

It's not as though I agree completely with all of them. I disagreed greatly with Hitchens on neo conservativism, and the Iraq war, and I disagree with Harris on his fears of AI, among other things.

 

At the end of the day, I want discourse, discourse, and more discourse. The more, the better.

[Dave]

These aren't atheist platforms. They're simply not theistic platforms. That's not really the same thing. An atheist platform needs to be actively promoting atheism, the way a theistic platform would actively promote theism. If you are talking about atheism as the default position, then sure, they're "atheist", but only in the sense that they aren't directly promoting theism. Which doesn't really make sense in this type of dialogue. By that logic, literally anything that isn't actively promoting theism is promoting atheism, and I just don't think that's true. I mean, would you call an episode of Curious Geroge an atheist program? Or just a children's cartoon geared toward learning?

 

I don't see how you can promote atheism. How do you promote the lack of a belief? I think you're using atheism interchangeably with is anti-theism. But I don't think they are the same thing at all.

 

You mistake insulting/criticizing bad ideas with wanting to take away the right of the person who believes them from being allowed to speak.

 

Kim Davis has every right to boast that homosexuality is a sin against God, and when she does, I have every right to call her an idiot for thinking that. Or in a less combative situaton, when Regressive Leftists want to shout down Ayaan Hirsi Ali from being able to speak at college campuses becuase they think she insults Islam, they should have every right to voice that opinion. And I should have every right to challenge it for it's trampling of free speech rights.

 

Criticizing bad ideas is fine. Insulting people who's ideas you find bad is, at best, poor form. We don't allow it here on the forum. Why? Because it dissolves any benefit from a dialogue.

 

As to who gets invited/dis invited to speak at a College campus, here are my issues:

 

1. This is not a free speech issue. No one is stopping anyone from speaking, they're just choosing not to pay someone to come to their college to speak, or protesting the paying of someone to speak at the college they attend.

2. Did Maher and co condemn college students when they protested over right wing speakers in the past?

3. Colleges have the right to endorse what ever messages they find appropriate. No one is calling on them to invite racists, bigots or the like to speak so that students can be exposed to views they disagree with.

 

 

I don't disagree here. I have a lot of issues with Maher (the vaccine thing most especially), but until something better comes along, I personally champion having some anti-theist voice in the mainstream.

 

It's not as though I agree completely with all of them. I disagreed greatly with Hitchens on neo conservativism, and the Iraq war, and I disagree with Harris on his fears of AI, among other things.

 

At the end of the day, I want discourse, discourse, and more discourse. The more, the better.

 

And that's just it. I don't see Maher supporting discourse, he crushes it. He does this by the very shouting down of opposing ideas that he condemns college students for. He'll have a token right winger on against two liberals, plus himself, plus his special guest. Then he'll shout them down and encourages the other liberals to do so.

[Phil]

I don't see how you can promote atheism. How do you promote the lack of a belief? I think you're using atheism interchangeably with is anti-theism. But I don't think they are the same thing at all.

 

Gotcha, I see what you are saying. Yes, in this case I'm using them interchangeably. Probably something I shouldn't do.

 

Criticizing bad ideas is fine. Insulting people who's ideas you find bad is, at best, poor form. We don't allow it here on the forum. Why? Because it dissolves any benefit from a dialogue.

 

As to who gets invited/dis invited to speak at a College campus, here are my issues:

 

1. This is not a free speech issue. No one is stopping anyone from speaking, they're just choosing not to pay someone to come to their college to speak, or protesting the paying of someone to speak at the college they attend.

2. Did Maher and co condemn college students when they protested over right wing speakers in the past?

3. Colleges have the right to endorse what ever messages they find appropriate. No one is calling on them to invite racists, bigots or the like to speak so that students can be exposed to views they disagree with.

 

 

Well, sort of. In order:

 

1. They actually are stopping them from speaking. College campuses, I think you’d agree, should be a bastion of free speech. They should be a place where thoughts are shared and criticized and debated to help in teaching students how to think (not what to think). So when someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali is scheduled to speak at a school and the students of that school then protest and demand that invitation be rescinded because some of them feel she insults Islam, and the school then rescinds the invitation, Ali is actually being shouted down before she’s even been given the chance to speak. That brings us full circle on why that is antithetical to what colleges are supposed to represent.

 

2. I have no idea. The only speech that should be limited in my view is the kind that incites violence or is intentiaonlly inclusive (think the KKK, ISIS, etc). So you wouldn’t invite a speaker who is actually there, specifically, to incite a riot for example.

 

3. Because those views are largely considered to be exclusive not inclusive. The reason KKK Grand Wizard’s aren’t invited to speak is because you run the risk of inciting actual violence due to their message, and because what they’d be there to speak about isn’t conducive to expanding the mind, or reinforcing critical thinking. It’s there to do the opposite.

 

But I do agree that campuses are private, so it is up to them what they do or don’t allow. I just think philosophically speaking, it’s absurd that campuses are now acting in this manner, because it flies in the face of their history of being places for ideas to be shared nearly without limits.

 

I view rescinded invitations for speakers at college campuses the way I view banned books at public libraries. Unless it’s an instruction manual on how to assemble explosives, why are we limiting what you can read based on what a handful of people find offensive?

 

If you find Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s message offensive, don’t listen to it. Don’t prevent others from being able to hear it.

 

And that's just it. I don't see Maher supporting discourse, he crushes it. He does this by the very shouting down of opposing ideas that he condemns college students for. He'll have a token right winger on against two liberals, plus himself, plus his special guest. Then he'll shout them down and encourages the other liberals to do so.

 

He does both. If you tune into Real Time on any given night, you can absolutely see him respond to certain positions with a lack of respect and sometimes vitriol, but when he’s talking to someone who holds the view he’s condemning, he still gives that person every opportunity to speak.

 

I don’t disagree about his format, though. It’s why I give conservatives who do go on his show a shit ton of kudos. You’re not only dealing with tag teaming, but a very liberal audience who applaud and boo along the way. Not an easy environment to work with. Similar to when O’Reilly brings renowned atheists on his show and just talks over them and continually cuts them off, or refuses to let them finish expanded points.

[Morphinity 2.0]

I think Colbert's got the best musical guests (I've "discovered" a lot of bands I like because of his show) and his willing to have intelligent conversations with his guests is refreshing.

 

He had a good interview with Donald Rumsfeld recently:

 

[video=youtube;4Z3z7DvoA-M]

 

You won't see that type of discussion happen on late night TV.