Home / abject wankery / The J’accusing Jackoffs of the NYT

The J’accusing Jackoffs of the NYT

Comments
/
/
/
774 Views

Nicholas Kristof makes a strong case against the need release more conservatives/Evangelicals into the groves of academe. Which is interesting because he claims he is doing the opposite.

If you’re in a hurry this morning, two excerpts summarize Kristof’s position.

1.

My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.

2.

And if you’re saying that conservatives may be tolerable, but evangelical Christians aren’t — well, are you really saying you would have discriminated against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.?

Right. It’s obvious I was kidding. Kristof isn’t arguing for or against more conservative voices around the university table. This is yet another round of You call yourself progressive? Then kiss this rabid skunk.

Normal people know that kissing a rabid skunk, eating a peanut butter & crap sandwich or whatever the litmus test de l’heure happens to be, has zero to do with anything. But the Kristofs of the world like to devise these tests and shout J’accuse! when the subjects refuse to participate, because they’re boring little toss artists.

WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Today’s puzzle: Figure out who Kristof means by We.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

Aww, look. He made a straw university for his straw progressives to attend! That’s dedication to the craft.

O.K., that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical.

O.K., I will do that very thing Here’s Dr. Yancey on Christianophobia.

As a sociologist whose research focuses on race and religion, I was curious to know more about cultural progressive activists, individuals who oppose the political agenda of conservative Christians, and their views on the Christian Right. In 2009, I conducted an online survey of nearly 4,000 people who tended to fall into this politically progressive, highly educated, white and wealthy demographic.

Their attitudes reflected the negativity toward Christians found in earlier research, with some particularly extreme and troubling remarks. Responding to open-ended questions, they said:

“Churches and houses of religion should be designated as nuclear test zones.”

“Kill them all, let their god sort them out.”

“The only good Christian is a dead Christian.”

I cannot determine by my data the percentage of Americans with such a level of vitriol, but judging by the comments, it’s not a trivial amount.

This is one of those times when sarcasm fails me and I can only LOL in wonder at the ease with which someone shovels a veritable Denali of bullshit.

And this anonymous professor.

“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr.

Prof. McCretin, like every other member of the Boy Who Cried Halp! Halp! I’m Bein’ Repressed! Club, is the equivalent of nothing more or less than the guy who wehs about how his wife left him just because he slapped her around a little bit. And then rants about women when this behavior fails to score him a Christ-shut-UP-all-ready fuck. No one wants that guy around for his unique perspectives on marriage, because he’s a jackass.

Maybe Kristof is the equivalent of that guy’s wingman. But all of the signs point to large amounts of Scold-mongering.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Derelict

    Unable to win people over with the apparent logic of their policies and philosophies, conservatives must invoke the power of the State in order to force themselves into positions they may not be suited for.

    Personally, I look forward to the day when a devout evangelical conservative can teach paleontology at a university. Today’s students deserve to know precisely how Jesus rode his dinosaur.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      “Today’s students deserve to know precisely how Jesus rode his dinosaur.”

      No kidding! Do you people have any idea how hard it is to stay on a velociraptor? It takes near-divine levels of skillz!

      • N__B

        It’s easy to ride a Kentrosaurus: you just impale yourself on a spike.

      • GeoX

        Considering that real-life velociraptors were about as big as medium-sized dogs, hard ain’t the half of it.

        • Ahuitzotl

          Its easy to stay on them, the problem is getting them to go anywhere once they have a couple of hundred pounds* of burden on their bank
          .
          * more or less. or more and more, idk.

  • Bill Murray

    so Yancey got 3 bad comments out of 4000 people interviewed, and the second and possibly the third are repeating lines from Christians about non-Christians, that’s a pretty low bad response rate.

    Also, maybe Yancey should have looked at Engineering Departments, if he wants to know about Christians in the academy.

    • Wapiti

      I read that as he got at least 3 negative comments from a survey he conducted online. Online surveys, imho, draw idiots like moths to a flame – I’d really like to know how he controlled for responses.

      • One of which was a quote from a bishop who slaughtered an entire heretic village using that slogan.

        which Bill already said. still it shows poor education on the part of the respondents

        • Ahuitzotl

          well, a misquote from a bishop, anyway

      • Right. And the first comment is about all places of worship, which doesn’t exactly support the anti-Evangelical animus theory.

        I did only a bit of searching for a write up of the study or even an abstract, but didn’t want to spend that much time in the Dr. Yancey rabbit hole, so no luck.

      • Snarki, child of Loki

        Yancy is just fortunate that his online poll didn’t result in him being renamed “Boaty McBoatface”.

        • Angry Warthog Breath

          Progressives want to forcibly rename all Christians to “Christian McChristianface”. Fight back.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      Engineering, schools of Business: both deviate from the “radical lefty” picture of academia.

      Although the engineers are slowly starting to move away from the increasingly insane GOP, since they do have to deal with that liberal ‘reality’ thing.

      Business schools, on the other hand, are more ‘flexible’ when it comes to the importance of ‘reality’.

      • BiloSagdiyev

        Therefore, they will not count for purposes of this propaganda. These people want control of all of the departments of academia.

    • ThrottleJockey

      Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

      Seems about right to me. A sizable bloc of liberals completely support multiculturalism, except when it comes to Evangelicals. I still can’t get over how DrDick thinks that teaching your children Creationism makes you guilty of child abuse…Its like some of these guys completely forgot about MLK. As I see it, religion is an aspect of identity that’s every bit as important to protect as race, gender, and sexual orientation. But a lot of liberals–with misguided notions of liberalism–disagree with that.

      • Hogan

        MLK was a creationist?

        • efgoldman

          MLK was a creationist?

          And the Pope, too?

          It’s not teaching them the story that’s child abuse. Hell, most of us went to Sunday school at one time or another. It’s teaching the story as science, to the exclusion and denial of evolution and paleontology that’s child abuse.

          • DrDick

            Exactly!

          • IS

            Well, for a value of creationism consistent with the theory of evolution and the big bang cosmology, sure.

      • The Temporary Name

        I still can’t get over how DrDick thinks that teaching your children Creationism makes you guilty of child abuse…Its like some of these guys completely forgot about MLK.

        Don’t lump King in with creationists.

        • Thirtyish

          Or use one’s personal understanding of the guy as a weird sort of trump card.

          • muddy

            It’s a pretty perfect example of the genre.

      • DrDick

        Teaching your children to reject science, and there is absolutely no scientific controversy over evolution, is a form of abuse. It condemns them to deliberate ignorance and harms their ability to succeed in the world. If you can reconcile your belief in divine creation with evolution, as many people do, then there is not a problem. The problem is in rejecting evolution.

        • Origami Isopod

          This.

          As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

        • Teaching your children to reject science […] harms their ability to succeed in the world

          Not necessarily. There are parts of the world where religious fundamentalism is in the ascendancy and teaching your children to reject science increases their safety.

      • Derelict

        As I see it, religion is an aspect of identity that’s every bit as important to protect as race, gender, and sexual orientation. But a lot of liberals–with misguided notions of liberalism–disagree with that.

        I think you’d be very hard pressed to find any liberals who wish to strip religious people of their religious identity. I think you’d find it equally difficult to find any liberals who wish to persecute religious people simply for being religious.

        What liberals (and people in general) object to is religious people forcing their religion on everyone around them. For example, demanding that the local school board open every meeting with a prayer to Jeesuz and then crying about being persecuted because not everyone in town wants to hear the good news. Or the evangelical co-worker who’s constantly pushing religious tracts on you and hinting about how you’re going to hell if you don’t convert–and then running to HR to complain he’s being persecuted when you tell him to go fuck off.

        You have an absolute right to believe in whatever you want to believe. You have no right to pester me or your non-believing neighbors about it, nor to insist that every public event be made into an opportunity to recruit on behalf of your beliefs.

        • Origami Isopod

          But, doncha know, if you don’t let them shove JEEEZUSSSS down your throat, you’re discriminating against them, because JEEEZUSSSS said to go out and spread the word!

          (He also said not to stand on the streetcorner and yell about him like a hypocrite, but let’s not let the facts get in the way here.)

    • DrDick

      Or computer science, economics, political science, history, or any number of others. The only fields I know of that are overwhelmingly liberal are the arts, humanities, and social sciences (with the exceptions already noted). The biggest reason that there are not more conservatives in academia is that it does not really pay very well compared to the private sector.

      • BiloSagdiyev

        Yyyyep. The money thing. Academia and the life of the mind do not mesh with their values.

        I heard the rodeo clown they have pushing this whole “anti-conseravtive bias” meme on public radio about two weeks ago, and he was moaning about how there’s a nearly complete lack of conservative/Republican sociologists. Gee, maybe they just don’t want to be sociologists?

  • This is not so hard to understand. “Conservative” nowadays means believing many things that are not true. The earth is in fact about 4.5 billion years old. Humans burning fossil fuels does indeed cause the climate to change, with somewhat predictable consequences. The “free market” (which is a fiction to begin with) does not produce justice and without appropriate constraint, it would fairly quickly kill us all. Markets are human inventions which require sustained and powerful government intervention to function. The history of the United States is characterized by genocide and imperialism. And so on. These are facts.

    People who are well informed and highly trained in critical thinking tend to end up as relatively liberal, based on current labeling of the spectrum of ideology and belief. Being a well informed critical thinker is a qualification to be on the faculties of most universities. If you do not possess those characteristics, you end up in a right wing “think” tank instead. That’s how it works.

    • DAS

      This.

      I have been on search committees and my department’s tenure and promotion committee, and religion or politics just doesn’t come up. In fact we have plenty of religiously active folks in my university, but you don’t find many conservatives. Not because we discriminate against conservatives but because people who believe in so many things contrary to reality just don’t generally go into the academy.

      • Snarki, child of Loki

        “…you don’t find many conservatives. Not because we discriminate against conservatives but because people who believe in so many things contrary to reality just don’t generally go into the academy.”

        Plus ‘low pay’. Now, if adding a few token morons conservatives would have the effect of raising the overall pay scale, perhaps it should be given due consideration.

        But there’s just such a rich vein of griftins’ available in RW punditry, that it’s hard for academia to be competitive.

      • CD

        It’s the easy conflation between conservative, evangelical Christian, and Republican that makes the Kristof piece so cretinous.

        Many of my evangelical students are politically left.

        “Conservative” is also a floating signifier. It can mean a Burkean caution about radical experiments by/in government plus a close sympathetic interest in family, religion, and other non-state social institutions. Alternatively, apparently, it can mean burn-it-down millennarianism or various revanchisms. (There’s a plural you don’t get to use every day.)

        There is a half a point buried here, that academia can tend toward complacent consensus, that keywords like neoliberal or diversity can get emptied of meaning and become slogans and signs of affiliation.

        • Hogan

          “When I saw you stop the world from, you know, ending, I just assumed that was a big week for you. It turns out I suddenly find myself needing to know the plural of apocalypse.”

          • Ahuitzotl

            +s4

        • BiloSagdiyev

          I took my revanchisms out of the attic this weekend, but they were terribly rusty. I suggest WD-40 and some Scotchbrite pads.

      • people who believe in so many things contrary to reality just don’t generally go into the academy.

        Kristof’s argument, I believe (and Haidt’s argument before him) is that in the name of Diversity you should put more effort into attracting them into the academy. What have you done to make your department more appealing to reality-averse recruits?

        • BiloSagdiyev

          Hey, wait a minute! Didn’t the NYT editorial page recruit some conservatives so they’d look more open-minded and fair? And what did they get? Kristol and Douthat? Nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck.

        • Ahuitzotl

          I agree with this argument. Doubling the salaries of all academic teaching staff should help attract them into the academy, right?

    • ThrottleJockey

      People who are well informed and highly trained in critical thinking tend to end up as relatively liberal, based on current labeling of the spectrum of ideology and belief.

      You think? I don’t think it has much to do with either of those things. You can find millions of well informed critical thinkers who are conservatives.

      I think it boils down mostly to values and experience. A lot, most really, of politics boils down to Identity and Interests. Most of how you identify is based on your cumulative life experience. And while a lot of values are baked in during your formative years, as adults a certain set of values emerge linked to your Interests (ie, economic interests).

      • “You can find millions of well informed critical thinkers who are conservatives.”

        No, you can’t. Not by the current meaning of the label. The essence of modern American conservatism is ignorance, motivated reasoning, and epistemic closure.

        • Thirtyish

          This.

          • Origami Isopod

            Yep.

        • DAS

          I actually have friends who are well informed, critical thinkers who are, in some way shape or form, conservative (even if they are not happy with the GOP). And you know what? They don’t (even the friend in academia) get oppressed because they are conservative.

          • There are people who are like British Tories, who are into The Economist. But in the U.S., if they still call themselves conservatives or Republicans it’s for historical reasons only.

            The strongest tell here is that it isn’t so much in departments of economics or history that you won’t find many conservatives. Physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, epidemiology, all of those departments in which the subject matter is not evidently political have strongly liberal faculty. And nobody asks your politics when you submit to a physics journal.

            • DAS

              Physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, epidemiology, all of those departments in which the subject matter is not evidently political have strongly liberal faculty.

              Are you sure about “not evidently political” in all of these departments? After all belief in evolution or global climate change is very much political.

      • Snarki, child of Loki

        “You can find millions of well informed critical thinkers who are conservatives.”

        I had NO IDEA that so many conservatives live in internet dark-zones, without even dialup access. Perhaps a federal program could be of help?

        The RW troll brigade already has a high-speed connection.

        • Thirtyish

          You don’t understand: TJ knows millions of people! Personally. I’m sure he has a colorful anecdote about each and every one of them.

          • A strawmanecdote, as it were.

            • The perfect complement to a strawmansplanation!

              • efgoldman

                A strawmanecdote, as it were.

                The perfect complement to a strawmansplanation!

                +6000 years! Each.

    • J. Otto Pohl

      This keeps coming up and it is still a vicious lie. The reason there are few people on the political right in US academia (it is not true in the UK or other places) has to do with institutional barriers. The people that dominate US faculties like to replicate themselves and so they select people like themselves. Hence US faculties tend to be dominated by white leftists. It is not because people critical of state ownership of the means of production are all idiots. For instance in the UK there have been a large number of conservative academics. The late Robert Conquest or Geoffrey Wheeler for instance. Or the still very much a alive Geoffrey Hosking. It is only in the US that the Sheila Fitzpatrick school of revsionism is dominant.

      • DocAmazing

        There are plenty of people on the political right in US academia, and they are as tenure-protected as their counterparts on the left; I was at Berkeley when Vincent Sarich came out with his racist and homophobic statements and remained on the faculty; John Yoo was mentioned above. That, once again, is at UC Berkeley, generally acknowledged to be Moscow West by conservative commentators.

        As with most whinging by conservatives and right-wingers, their complaint is not that they are not represented, it is that they are not in control.

        • J. Otto Pohl

          No that is not my complaint. The lack of intellectual diversity in US faculties is a result of structural barriers to exploring certain ideas in US academia and I am not talking about creationism. As I noted above other countries including the UK don’t seem to have such exclusionary obstacles and as a result have a far higher percentage of right wing academics. It is truly a disgrace when a racist apartheid state like Israel has a far more intellectually open and diverse academic culture than the US.

          • DocAmazing

            In economics, we had decades of Milton Friedman-esque free-market crap overrepresented in US universities; we’ve seen the firings of instructors like Ward Churchill and Steven Salaita; we have entire universities responding to their right-wing donors, like George Mason University. What ideas are not being explored in US universities due to the exclusion of right-wing thinkers?

            • J. Otto Pohl

              A whole bunch and by the way I strongly supported Salaita. Among the ideas not explored in US academia to any great extent due to the exclusion of right wingers is the role of racial discrimination aganist people like Koreans and Kalmyks in Soviet policies during the 1930s and 1940s. Others are the similarities of Soviet rule over non-Russian territories to settler colonialism elsewhere in the world and generally not treating socialist societies as immune from the same types of social problems that exist in capitalist socities.

            • The Lorax

              Yep. It’s true the English department is full of leftists. But the business school is full of right wingers. At least this is the case everyplace I’ve been.

              • Schadenboner

                At my (third-rate, public-urban) school the business department was certainly conservative (relative to some other departments) and conservative (relative to LGM), but I would have been shocked if they didn’t probably poll 70+% Democratic, just not “LGM-Democratic”.

                And that was back in the 00s, now I’m sure it’s north of 85%, because the Republican party has lost it’s goddamn mind in the last decade.

      • ColBatGuano

        Since people’s religious or political beliefs rarely come up in an interview, how is this conformity enforced? Google searches?

        • J. Otto Pohl

          Politics do come up just not in terms of partisanship. But, what topics somebody researches in history are be defninition are political and their interpretation even more so. Nobody looking at my professional publications is going to mistake me for an apologist of Stalinism for instance. The fact that my research concentrates on the plight of “politically incorrect peoples” like Russian Germans and Crimean Tatars and the fact I think they were victims of official racism and genocide is easily discovered by a search committee.

          https://ugh.academia.edu/OttoPohl

          • DocAmazing

            ugh.academia

            Paging Dr. Freud…

            • J. Otto Pohl

              ??? U(niversity) of Gh(ana) it is the code given to the univeristy. But, feel free to disparage it because it is a predominantly black institution, typical leftist.

              • The Temporary Name

                Birjand University of Medical Sciences.

                http://bums.ac.ir/

              • DocAmazing

                I’m sure that the University of Ghana is a fine institution of higher learning. “Ugh” is a common onomatopoeic expression of disgust in colloquial American English, as I’m sure you already know.

                • The Dark God of Time

                  He’s not exactly a de Maistre, is he?

              • Pseudonym

                But, feel free to disparage it because it is a predominantly black institution, typical leftist.

                It’s hard to imagine why you had trouble getting American universities to take you seriously as a good-faith scholar.

          • DAS

            I guess your point about topics of study revealing politics is even true to some degree in the sciences: e.g. I don’t think any religious fundamentalist is gonna be interested in researching one of my research areas, the evolution of protein flexibility because evolution. However, even in some “political” areas, the choice of research topic doesn’t tell you too terribly much about a person’s politics, e.g. I know some atmospheric scientists who are actually pretty agnostic about the ultimate causes of global warming (so your point about “interpretation” is necessary here), although you probably aren’t gonna get a global warming denialist if you are hiring an atmospheric scientist and choose to go with studying climate change.

            On the other hand, all of the search committees I’ve been on have been in disciplines where there would be few choices of research topics that would reveal politics, and yet even though there is no reason to believe that, e.g., a candidate studying layered double hydroxides would be more liberal than a candidate studying cluster compounds or that a candidate studying interactions of light with nanostructured materials would be more liberal than a candidate studying laser absorption spectroscopy, we’ve ended up hiring people who are left of center. So I don’t think “search committees avoid hiring candidates whose chosen topics of study reveal them to be conservative” is sufficient to explain the degree to which, e.g. science, departments are increasingly uniformly populated by liberals/leftists.

            • J. Otto Pohl

              My father was a chemical engineer for decades and only one of his colleagues was an actual leftist. Not even his associates in Poland, East Germany, the USSR, and PRC were leftists. Those that had party membership renounced it soon after 1989 for the DDR and 1991 for the USSR. The only true believing Marxist was from Philly. He was a member of some very small Marxist-Leninist splinter party. So my impression is that the sciences are not dominated by leftists. This is rather different from the humanities and social sciences. For instance one of the prominent US Africanists dealing with Ghana is a dues paying member of the CPUSA.

              http://peoplesworld.org/dennis-laumann

      • DAS

        The people that dominate US faculties like to replicate themselves and so they select people like themselves.

        We have had this happen in the past in my department — and when people who are curmudgeons select people who are like themselves, it causes all sorts of grief, as you can imagine. And FWIW, the curmudgeons selecting people like themselves, were, politically speaking, moderates rather than liberals. However, nowadays we try to make sure all of our hires complement existing faculty and technical staff strengths, so we are not hiring clones of ourselves. And yet, politically our department ranges from moderate liberal to distinctly left of center.

        And even if we did hire people like ourselves, we wouldn’t necessarily be politically homogeneous. For example, our department’s chair is practically (personality-wise) a clone of one of my apartment mates in grad school: if you talk to them socially, you’d think they were the same person. However, my department chair (in addition to being much better at academic politics and schmoozing than my former apartment mate) is definitely left of center while my apartment mate was a conservative.

        • J. Otto Pohl

          In sub-fields of history it is enough to seriously skew the balance. For instance the orthodox party line in US academia is that other than anti-semitism that there was no official racial discrimination in the USSR under Stalin. There are a number of people that write about the subject outside the US including people at Russian universities. But, in the US it is impossible to find any professors actively working on the subject because officially according to the US establishment it did not exist. So people who write about it don’t get interviewed yet alone hired.

  • dmsilev

    My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars facing discrimination.

    That’s probably because the abused chickens are far more appealing than conservatives whining that “because God said so” isn’t considered a robust chain of evidence and reasoning by scientific journals.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      My Facebook followers have incredible compassion for war victims in South Sudan, for kids who have been trafficked, for torture victims, even for abused chickens, but no obvious empathy for conservative scholars like torture-justifier John Yoo facing discrimination.

      • Colin Day

        Yoo is still a law professor at Cal.

      • Hey, if it wasn’t for state sponsored torture, Jesus would be an obscure historical footnote. Why do you hate Christianity?

        • DAS

          +316

  • howard

    i don’t waste any time reading kristof, whose bland emptiness turned me off years ago, but does he have a single, you know, fact to support his contention?

    because on the face of it, he appears to be wondering why there aren’t more slow 5′ 5″ players with poor ball-handling skills in the nba….

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      What’s Tebow doing these days? Think he’ll switch to the NBA?

    • Jon_H11

      Evangelical Christians seem to either not follow the rules of academic argument and research, or, if they do at least attempt to, simply fail to produce anything of worth.

      “Okay everyone, we’re playing basketball on this court.”

      “But I want to kick the ball! I’m going to kick the ball!”

      “Okay, Billy, you can go play soccer over in that field there with anyone else who wants to play.”

      “Just because I’m going to kick the ball I can’t play basketball here on the court?! You let Jack play even though he’s black, you let Marty play even though he’s gay, why can’t I play even though I’m going to kick the ball?”

      “…those are in no way similar…”

      “REVERSE DISCRIMINATION! If Jack can play even though he’s black and Marty can play even though he’s gay, I should be able to stay here and kick the ball without penalty.”

  • Merkwürdigliebe

    “You call yourself progressive? Then kiss this rabid skunk.” cracked me up, but I would have personally gone with this.

  • Jackov

    Selective universities are the bedrock sometimes exemplars of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities often do not prioritize is socioeconomic. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as my children do not lose their spots at Legacy U. to the poors.

    About 74% more truthiness than Kristof’s original

  • cpinva

    “Today’s puzzle: Figure out who Kristof means by We.”

    hah, my first thought as I was reading that.

  • There’s nothing but gas
    ‘twixt “J’accuse!” and Jackass!

  • Area Man

    I’m going to have to nominate this for least self-aware thing ever written:

    For example, one of my respondents stated that Christians “pretend to be under attack from mysterious forces of evil by way of secularists, but this is merely a convenient boogie-man invoked to make their followers send them money and to make them appear as victims.” These stereotypes offer insight into those with Christianophobia, their concerns over Christian takeover, and their desire to limit Christian influence.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      +666

    • izzy

      Yup. I was raised evangelical, and this is a more fundamental evangelical myth than creationism.

      • burritoboy

        Considering that that’s the central message of the Fundamentals, the series of books funded by right-wing oil millionaires that goosed much of the fundamentalist evangelical movement into existence, I would say it’s the most central fundamentalist myth of all.

    • Thirtyish

      I have a Procter & Gamble on line 1, Bill.

    • DocAmazing

      Wandering into Poe territory…

    • Origami Isopod

      They don’t pretend to be under attack. They literally think they are under attack. They’ve constructed their whole subculture around a self-concept of being the poor, innocent victims of a wicked world full of gleefully unrepentant Devil-filled sinners who refuse to hear their Good News™.

      • The Lorax

        And Jesus spoke to the disciples of being under attack, who really would be under attack. Yet they think Jesus is speaking about them.

      • BiloSagdiyev

        I’ve been saying it for years: Make up your mind, people! Is Amurrica a CHRISTIAN NATION! (shake fist) being held down by a tiny, evil, UN liberal lesbian Hillary witch black helicopter cabal elite? Or are you a poor widdle persecuted minority? You can’t have it both ways.

        • Ahuitzotl

          if you can believe in the Prosperity gospel, and ignore the whole ‘give up everything and follow me’ bit, believing those 2 articles of faith is trivial.

  • Bitter Scribe

    Conservative right-wing Christians can always apply for jobs at Wheaton College.

    Of course, when they’re fired for asserting on Facebook that Muslims are human beings, they can go complain to someone who gives a shit.

    • burritoboy

      Well, you’re somewhat joking, but there are more than 100 evangelical colleges and universities. That many of them are lackluster in achievements is….well, I’m sure the fundamentalists will find a way to blame that on somebody else, won’t they?

  • KadeKo

    Passing on the right”?

    Uh, I’m way too white and way too boring-cis-straight-suburban to have any say in the matter, but is there any way that word passing doesn’t make the user look like they’re breaking their arm nailing themself to the cross?

    There are two uses of that word I can think of, and neither fit Christianity in the US today.

    • DocAmazing

      Actually, it is somewhat apt: passing on the right is a fine way to carelessly cause a collision.

      • efgoldman

        passing on the right is a fine way to carelessly cause a collision.

        And, maybe not surprisingly, legal under some circumstances in Massachusetts.

        • KadeKo

          I thought one could be arrested in MA for not diving into the breakdown lane to pass.

        • There is a meaninful distinction between “passing” and “overtaking” in traffic, the latter act consisting of the former act immediately preceded and followed by changing lanes (first out of, then back into) that occupied by the vehicle(s) being overtaken. At some point I somehow formed the impression that in Massachusetts what is illegal is overtaking on the right, not (simply) passing on the right. That impression has not (yet) been confronted and defeated by any contrary reality in the person of a cop.

          • efgoldman

            At some point I somehow formed the impression that in Massachusetts what is illegal is overtaking on the right, not (simply) passing on the right.

            On a multi-lane highway, there’s really no difference. Which, in the Southeastern part of the state is a good thing, since many people habitually stay in the center lane at or slightly below the speed limit.

            • Is there like a thing where people commit to driving 35 no matter the speed limit? As some kind of political statement?

              • The Dark God of Time

                More likely, to save gas. 35 is about the right speed for peak efficiency in a conventional gas engine vehicle.

            • At some point I somehow formed the impression that in Massachusetts what is illegal is overtaking on the right, not (simply) passing on the right.

              On a multi-lane highway, there’s really no difference.

              Au contraire, mon vieux! In the first case, the asshole behind you comes speeding up, veers at the last minute into the lane to your right WHICH PUTS HIS CAR INTO YOUR BLIND SPOT, overtakes you on the right (briefly appearing as an object in your right-side mirror that, amazingly, is even closer than it appears), then veers back in front of you in your lane. Not at all the same as mere overtaking. Often seems like a prelude to some undertaking.

      • Ahuitzotl

        not in England, tho, as I’m sure JOtto will attest

  • semiotix

    Nicholas Kristof… where have I heard that name before?

    Oh yes, he’s the guy who went to Cambodia, “bought” two coerced sex workers for a few hundred dollars, dropped them off in a different part of the country, came home, wrote masturbatory* pieces about what a hero he was (but so humble, too!), got a lot of humanitarian awards, went back to Cambodia to check on his former slaves, slut-shamed one (by name) for having been unable to permanently resist the forces that had gotten her into sex slavery in the first place, came home again, and has spent the last 12 years giving lectures at $50,000 a pop to anyone who wants to hear him talk for an hour about what a caring humanitarian he is.

    Yeah, by all means, I’d like to be scolded by THIS guy.

    * not intended as a figure of speech; I genuinely believe he was masturbating as he wrote it.

    • Origami Isopod

      Thanks. I think everyone here knows that story, but it doesn’t hurt to say it again for the people up in the balcony seats.

      Kristof is the dictionary definition of a whitewashed sepulchre.

    • BiloSagdiyev

      I believe it was the late Alexander Cockburn who pointed out that Kristof went on so much about the 3rd world teen sex workers that odds were good he was fucking some.

  • Colin Day

    $50,000 per lecture? I couldn’t afford to get scolded by him!

  • Julia Grey

    The Pope is not a creationist. Just to keep things straight. The Catholic Church has acknowledged evolution.

    • Please do not confuse the Whore of BabylonCatholic Church w/ Bible-believing Christian churches.

      • Pseudonym

        But I thought Protestantism was invented by Satanist Freemasons.

  • mds

    “I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying

    “… and the reason why Mississippi just enacted a vile anti-gay law in April 2016 is down to the conservative evangelicals on my own morally and intellectually bankrupt pile-of-pigshit team. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go fuck myself some more with my phony-baloney persecution complex.”

    (I mean, the book was obviously published before the latest round of “Let’s beat on the filthy homos some more,” but in retrospect, Mississippi turned out to be especially non-apropos.)

    • Derelict

      The fact that they’re not throwing the queers from tall buildings should stand as proof-positive of how progressive Missislippery is!

      • efgoldman

        The fact that they’re not throwing the queers from tall buildings

        Do they have any tall buildings? (sorry, Anderson).

        • ++rim-shot!!

        • Origami Isopod

          Are you kidding? Mississippi is full of churches.

  • LosGatosCA

    I cannot determine by my data the percentage of Americans with such a level of vitriol, NY Time pundits who are idiots but judging by the comments, columns from Dowd, Brooks, Kristof and Douthat it’s not a trivial amount.

    On line surveys are amazingly accurate by the way, at least whenever I have completed one.

It is main inner container footer text