Trying to Understand the Pat Condell Backlash

[Pennies for Thoughts]

It's easy to understand why the religious don't like Pat Condell. Where Dawkins goes after them with a rapier and Hitchens with skewer, Condell uses a shillelagh. But non-believers? A search of LoR finds those who just don't like him (and who's to argue with personal taste?), and others decrying his anti-Islam rants as racist even though religion isn't a race.

His catalog is that of an equal opportunity ranter, as can be seen in this video where, after hitting proselytizers with some fine shots, he whips himself into a near-comedic lather of denunciation.

Condell criticizes religion in general, though he bludgeons Christianity, Islam, Judaism and others to be named later when they do individual things that annoy him. Catholicism, the religion to which he once belonged, receives a particularly generous helping of vitriol, yet his anti-Catholic opinions aren't drawing the same level of heat from the free thought community as his anti-Islamic opinions.

He has a right-leaning Libertarian side that puts some people off, and his editorials are about style with substance present, but not at, the head table. Are shortcomings like these sufficient for running him off the ranch? What is the Condell backlash about?

 

[Aught3]

When he starts saying that Catholics shouldn't be allowed to build churches or that Christians shouldn't be allowed in the UK I hope there will be the same level of condemnation. The people talking racism have it wrong.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

When he starts saying that Catholics shouldn't be allowed to build churches or that Christians shouldn't be allowed in the UK I hope there will be the same level of condemnation. The people talking racism have it wrong.

And just as importantly, just because Condell isn't necessarily racist, it doesn't mean that he isn't a bigot.

 

[lrkun]

It's easy to understand why the religious don't like Pat Condell. Where Dawkins goes after them with a rapier and Hitchens with skewer, Condell uses a shillelagh. But non-believers? A search of LoR finds those who just don't like him (and who's to argue with personal taste?), and others decrying his anti-Islam rants as racist even though religion isn't a race.

His catalog is that of an equal opportunity ranter, as can be seen in this video where, after hitting proselytizers with some fine shots, he whips himself into a near-comedic lather of denunciation.

Condell criticizes religion in general, though he bludgeons Christianity, Islam, Judaism and others to be named later when they do individual things that annoy him. Catholicism, the religion to which he once belonged, receives a particularly generous helping of vitriol, yet his anti-Catholic opinions aren't drawing the same level of heat from the free thought community as his anti-Islamic opinions.

He has a right-leaning Libertarian side that puts some people off, and his editorials are about style with substance present, but not at, at the head table. Are shortcomings like these sufficient for running him off the ranch? What is the Condell backlash about?

Are his videos akin to this? This is the first time I've watched one of his videos, I kind of like it.

 

[Prolescum]

It's easy to understand why the religious don't like Pat Condell. Where Dawkins goes after them with a rapier and Hitchens with skewer, Condell uses a shillelagh. But non-believers? A search of LoR finds those who just don't like him (and who's to argue with personal taste?), and others decrying his anti-Islam rants as racist even though religion isn't a race.

His catalog is that of an equal opportunity ranter, as can be seen in this video where, after hitting proselytizers with some fine shots, he whips himself into a near-comedic lather of denunciation.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

He has a right-leaning Libertarian side that puts some people off, and his editorials are about style with substance present, but not at, at the head table. Are shortcomings like these sufficient for running him off the ranch? What is the Condell backlash about?

Please try to defend Condell's opinions discussed in this thread. If you can't then you'll understand where the backlash comes from. With views like these, it's evident that he's most certainly not libertarian!

 

[Nautyskin]

It's easy to understand why the religious don't like Pat Condell. Where Dawkins goes after them with a rapier and Hitchens with skewer, Condell uses a shillelagh. But non-believers? A search of LoR finds those who just don't like him (and who's to argue with personal taste?), and others decrying his anti-Islam rants as racist even though religion isn't a race.

His catalog is that of an equal opportunity ranter, as can be seen in this video where, after hitting proselytizers with some fine shots, he whips himself into a near-comedic lather of denunciation.

Condell criticizes religion in general, though he bludgeons Christianity, Islam, Judaism and others to be named later when they do individual things that annoy him. Catholicism, the religion to which he once belonged, receives a particularly generous helping of vitriol, yet his anti-Catholic opinions aren't drawing the same level of heat from the free thought community as his anti-Islamic opinions.

He has a right-leaning Libertarian side that puts some people off, and his editorials are about style with substance present, but not at, at the head table. Are shortcomings like these sufficient for running him off the ranch? What is the Condell backlash about?

Gee, Pennies. It almost sounds like Condell wrote this post.

I absolutely love Condell's humor, and that's the main reason I watch his videos. I don't think he's anywhere near as educated on Islam as he should or could be (or perhaps thinks he is) and I never think it right for anyone to be speaking quite so loudly and/or authoritatively on a topic they really haven't done their homework on.

That's not to say I have a problem with him. I don't. It's not like I watch his videos to inform my world-view. It's entertainment.

That said, I understand why people are upset that a mosque is going up reasonably close to ground zero, but I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I did when I first heard the whole "BEING BUILT ON GROUND ZERO - Opening day Sept 11th 2011" thing, but once I'd looked into it and found out what was really going on, I see it being even a potentially good thing. Should they be allowed to build there? I can't think of any real reason why not. Should they build there? I think it might've been prudent to perhaps wait another nine years, knowing the reaction it might cause - it really does have the potential to become a disaster.

Anyway, I think Pat needs to research the other side of the argument a bit more before launching into a tirade about something, because then he wouldn't be forced to defend any ignorant comments he may make.

 

[australopithecus]

I dislike Condell because aside from claiming to a comedian while being painfully unfunny, I've never been able to sit through one of his videos without feeling like I need a shower to become clean. As Joe said, just because he's not racist it doesn't mean he's not a bigot, and his views sail very close to those winds.

 

[joshurtree]

I think he was successful because of the style of his videos. For me it was refreshing to see someone go so vociferously after religion and he has made some good points in the past. The religious are not the only ones that can get so carried away with an idea that it blinds them to the problems within it. I think that many people got so carried away with the idea of Pat Condell that it blinded them to the increasing bigotry within his videos. This backlash has been due for a while.

What shook me free was when he declared that he was voting for UKIP. No right minded individual who gives a damn about their freedoms (and he claims that freedom is his religion) would ever consider voting for a party that is one step down from the BNP. Since then every video of his grated on me. I now watch his videos with a far more skeptical eye paying far more attention to the details and less time enjoying the style. When you do that the myth of Pat Condell falls down like a house of cards.

 

[MRaverz]

He claimed that I was a Scientologist in response to a comment I made, the man is a fool.

 

[Atomicnumber86]

It's easy to understand why the religious don't like Pat Condell. Where Dawkins goes after them with a rapier and Hitchens with skewer, Condell uses a shillelagh. But non-believers? A search of LoR finds those who just don't like him (and who's to argue with personal taste?), and others decrying his anti-Islam rants as racist even though religion isn't a race.

His catalog is that of an equal opportunity ranter, as can be seen in this video where, after hitting proselytizers with some fine shots, he whips himself into a near-comedic lather of denunciation.
-youtube link removed-
Condell criticizes religion in general, though he bludgeons Christianity, Islam, Judaism and others to be named later when they do individual things that annoy him. Catholicism, the religion to which he once belonged, receives a particularly generous helping of vitriol, yet his anti-Catholic opinions aren't drawing the same level of heat from the free thought community as his anti-Islamic opinions.

He has a right-leaning Libertarian side that puts some people off, and his editorials are about style with substance present, but not at, at the head table. Are shortcomings like these sufficient for running him off the ranch? What is the Condell backlash about?

Because if we don't criticize him, people will get down our throat, even thou he is not related to this site. Wait, we are talking about Pat Condell, not thunderf00t here.. my bad.
Wait we are on against, is his downright ignorance on the subject. And downrighted bigotness. Muslims are not all terrorists, not all terrorists are muslims, not all muslims are terrorists. What makes people go after Condell more than others, is that he is popular, and therefore is a voice of 'atheism', at least seen from an outside perspective. And then the fact, that he openly supports Christianity more than Islam. Where my personal position is, you say tomato, I say tomà¡to. Take a look at his favorites. The most recent are of ultra-rightwing Christian nutjobs. For fucks sake, he even fav'ed Drinkingwithbob videos. Take a good look at his favorites, and tell me how many of them are not Christian zealots? I have personally made a couple of videos about these very favorites. And they come from Christian sources. Christians that want to take over the world. They want to enforce their religious views.. Therefore we call Condell out on his hypocrisy.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Now admittedly I care next to nothing about all this... drama. However, my impression was that Pat directs the bulk of his ire towards Muslims; notably supporting laws that would disproportionately affect Muslims (such as this whole burka business), and opposing various attempts by Muslims to encroach upon the legal system (such as this whole Sharia law business.)

Now I can't really fault him for the latter, except insofar (as others have pointed out) that he does not make efforts with regards to other religious exemptions in Britain.

With regard towards the former, this seems bigoted whether its racist or not.

 

[Dustnite]

The problem I have with Pat is that he tries to incite drama on Youtube to bump his subscriber count or at least draw more attention from the YT community. His fanboys that invade the comments section on his videos are probably some of the dumbest people I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with and I've yet to hear an argument from him that isn't incredibly fallacious or flawed.

He also claims that he's a comedian, which makes just about as much sense as calling my toaster a comedian...He has always made flawed arguments prior to the Ground Zero mosque issue, but his recent videos have just turned the hypocrisy dial to maximum.

For everyone on this thread claiming that you don't have strong feelings on this issue, I would just remind you what's happening in Tennessee and please explain to me how the demagoguery being displayed by people like Pat are not related.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

For everyone on this thread claiming that you don't have strong feelings on this issue, I would just remind you what's happening in Tennessee and please explain to me how the demagoguery being displayed by people like Pat are not related.

Unfortunately said demagoguery is merely a symptom of a media which feeds upon controversy and panders to such fools. Short of not indulging in this little game of theirs I'm not sure what you expect me to do about it.

Indifference is my weapon.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Aught3 wrote:
When he starts saying that Catholics shouldn't be allowed to build churches or that Christians shouldn't be allowed in the UK I hope there will be the same level of condemnation.

Where has he said Muslims shouldn't build mosques or be allowed in the UK? His arguments have been specific, rather than universal. He's against the two-blocks-from-ground-zero mosque because he sides with those who see it as an in-your-face gesture from Manhattan's Muslims. He voted UKIP to protest what he sees as mainstream politicians as kowtowing to British-Islamic separatists, not to support anti-immigration.

True, these are not the wisest of reasons or courses of action. For instance, it isn't clear that the in-your-face component of the NYC mosque is a primary or long-term motivation. Similarly, boycotting the polls would have sent a better message than boasting about a throw-away vote for the UKIP. But human propensity for following dumb actions by others with dumber actions of our own is a trait well-practiced beyond the circle of Pat Condell. Such decisions are fair game for critics but are they the makings of a pariah?

Prolescum wrote:</B><i></i>
I don't recall people actually calling him racist. His political positions have been criticized, rightly IMO.

Entering "pat condell racist" into Google leads to a collection of racism claims, none of which provide adequate support for this opinion.

As for his politics, everyone with political points of view weathers criticism. Given the number of socially and politically charged Condell videos, it would be impossible to agree with everything, yet it seems as if there are those who have extrapolated disagreement with some of his points to all of his points. This is ad hominem dismissiveness masquerading as criticism.

<B>Gunboat Diplomat wrote:
Please try to defend Condell's opinions discussed in this thread. If you can't then you'll understand where the backlash comes from. With views like these, it's evident that he's most certainly not libertarian!

Condell has been dismissed in a few LoR threads; it was the "Bad faith at ground zero" thread to which you refer that inspired this one. That thread begins with Condell's opinion of the proposed mosque which I don't feel particularly compelled to defend since I too disagree with it. Many of that thread's posts express negative opinions about the man himself rather than his position on the mosque (which I hope we don't dwell on this thread), and this is confusing.

As for his libertarian views, they are scattered throughout his videos usually in the form of asides like his poke at human rights commissions at 1:13 in this thread's "Take You God and Shove Him" video. Whether his libertarian asides are sufficient to label him "Libertarian" is really a topic for another thread, and an interesting one.

Nautyskin wrote:
It's not like I watch his videos to inform my world-view. It's entertainment.

Well said, and this suggests an ingredient of the backlash. Those looking to inform their world-view are sure to be disappointed in Condell and may launch arrows in his direction. Firing arrows at a political talking head makes sense, but against an entertainer it seems like a waste of ammo.


As for those who just don't like him, again personal taste needs no justification, but the use of identifiers like "bigoted" and "demagogic" could be better understood with examples.

A few bad jokes and bad ideas are easy to find in Pat Condell's videos, but are they really worthy of contempt? Do they support the inference that he has no good jokes, or ideas? Viewers regularly top 200,000 per Condell video. Something is turning people on. What are Condell's strong points?

 

[Aught3]

Where has he said Muslims shouldn't build mosques or be allowed in the UK? His arguments have been specific, rather than universal. He's against the two-blocks-from-ground-zero mosque because he sides with those who see it as an in-your-face gesture from Manhattan's Muslims.

Okay I've listened to the specifics and it isn't any better. If someone said a christian church couldn't be built next a bombed abortion clinic (a specific case) that would be just as bad. Perhaps you are right about him not being anti-immigration, that was the impression I got from some of his videos but I haven't seen them all.

 

[Prolescum]

Prolescum wrote:</B><i></i>
I don't recall people actually calling him racist. His political positions have been criticized, rightly IMO.

Entering "pat condell racist" into Google leads to a collection of racism claims, none of which provide adequate support for this opinion.

Oh you were asking why the entire world dislikes him, not just members of LoR. Well, whatever. I was referring to the thread I linked to.

As for his politics, everyone with political points of view weathers criticism. Given the number of socially and politically charged Condell videos, it would be impossible to agree with everything, yet it seems as if there are those who have extrapolated disagreement with some of his points to all of his points. This is ad hominem dismissiveness masquerading as criticism.

No, he specifically chose to align himself with and vote for a party that is rabidly anti-Europe and peculiarly pro-monarchy, meaning that any legislation from the EU regardless of its utility is dismissed as another loss of sovereignty and self-determination whether it is or not, despite being a party that wants power transferred back from the commons to the lords and the effing queen. It's not just a case of disagreeing with a political viewpoint, it's that with this choice, he is a big fucking hypocrite; his religion is freedom after all! :lol:
If, like many, he wanted to vote for a non-mainstream party as protest, there were dozens to choose from from either side of the spectrum; he is forever tainted by making that specific choice. He's clearly not an idiot so it's not unreasonable to assume he is aware of that party's policies and views - he also later defended the choice, IIRC.

You can call it an ad-hominem if you want, but you would be wrong, laughably so. He is a fucking hypocrite.

<B>Nautyskin wrote:
It's not like I watch his videos to inform my world-view. It's entertainment.

Well said, and this suggests an ingredient of the backlash. Those looking to inform their world-view are sure to be disappointed in Condell and may launch arrows in his direction. Firing arrows at a political talking head makes sense, but against an entertainer it seems like a waste of ammo.

It would only be a waste of ammo if general internet users didn't presume that he (not alone, of course) represents the common view of atheists. Like many with the loudest voices (like bloody thunderf00t), he is assumed to speak for all of us in general, and to let slide hypocrisy of that magnitude only invites further condemnation of us as either party to those views or allowing it to pass without comment because he's 'one of us', making us supposedly rational people hypocrites. Why you find this so hard to grasp is something you'll have to ponder on your own.

As for those who just don't like him, again personal taste needs no justification, but the use of identifiers like "bigoted" and "demagogic" could be better understood with examples.

There are plenty of examples of his bigotry given already.

A few bad jokes and bad ideas are easy to find in Pat Condell's videos, but are they really worthy of contempt? Do they support the inference that he has no good jokes, or ideas? Viewers regularly top 200,000 per Condell video. Something is turning people on. What are Condell's strong points?

It is not 'a few bad jokes and bad ideas' that are worthy of contempt, it is his position as an atheist mouthpiece being used to espouse bigoted views and claiming to be a freedom lover when his actions say otherwise. I question why you're actually defending him by beating around the bush with the wrong end of the stick. You already know, having read those threads, why people are against him, how is it suddenly 'ad-hominem' or 'are a few bad jokes really contemptible'? Your thoughts expressed here suggest an agenda, you know...

Anyway, who gives a toss what his strong point are? It is simple to understand, we are guilty by association with a bigot and a hypocrite; that is reason enough to take an active stand against him.

You, of course, are free to dismiss the criticisms of his actions, but to attempt to reduce my (and others') view to an ill-informed ad-hominem is insulting.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Not everything that I'm responding to was directed at me but Pennies for Thoughts has been making wildly extrapolative interpretations of responses to him and I thought I should point this out...

As for his politics, everyone with political points of view weathers criticism. Given the number of socially and politically charged Condell videos, it would be impossible to agree with everything, yet it seems as if there are those who have extrapolated disagreement with some of his points to all of his points. This is ad hominem dismissiveness masquerading as criticism.

Can you please give an example of this? I've seen harsh criticism leveled at Pat but I haven't seen anyone dismiss an otherwise reasonable point he's made because of one of his unreasonable ones...

Condell has been dismissed in a few LoR threads; it was the "Bad faith at ground zero" thread to which you refer that inspired this one. That thread begins with Condell's opinion of the proposed mosque which I don't feel particularly compelled to defend since I too disagree with it. Many of that thread's posts express negative opinions about the man himself rather than his position on the mosque (which I hope we don't dwell on this thread), and this is confusing.

I'm sorry, the way you've written your opinion is a little ambiguous. Are you saying you disagree with Pat in regards to building the mosque?

What's wrong with expressing negative opinions about him? Unless you mean to say that their argument against his arguments is their negative opinions about him personally but I don't think anyone has done that... Some people don't like him because of some of the things he's done. I don't see what's wrong with that. There is no one on Earth with whom I disagree on all opinions yet there are plenty of people I dislike...

As for his libertarian views, they are scattered throughout his videos usually in the form of asides like his poke at human rights commissions at 1:13 in this thread's "Take You God and Shove Him" video. Whether his libertarian asides are sufficient to label him "Libertarian" is really a topic for another thread, and an interesting one.

I'm sorry, I didn't see any libertarian views in that video. Can you please explain in more detail what you think is libertarian about this video or any other? Feel free to make another thread if you think it's warranted...

Well said, and this suggests an ingredient of the backlash. Those looking to inform their world-view are sure to be disappointed in Condell and may launch arrows in his direction. Firing arrows at a political talking head makes sense, but against an entertainer it seems like a waste of ammo.

Debating creationists may seem like "a waste of ammo" but as long as people listen to said creationists, they're worth debating. This isn't unique to creationists...

Not that I think this is the issue here. I think people are upset over offensive things said by someone they previously respected. I still don't see what's wrong with that...

As for those who just don't like him, again personal taste needs no justification, but the use of identifiers like "bigoted" and "demagogic" could be better understood with examples.

As I suggested before, go defend his bigoted opinion discussed in that thread. If you don't wish to do so then simply admit that he's bigoted. What's so hard about that?

A few bad jokes and bad ideas are easy to find in Pat Condell's videos, but are they really worthy of contempt? Do they support the inference that he has no good jokes, or ideas? Viewers regularly top 200,000 per Condell video. Something is turning people on. What are Condell's strong points?

I think he's hilarious when he's not being an ass. However, there are many people who just don't think he's funny. Do you think he's somehow universally funny? You seem to since you think people need something to "support the inference that he has no good jokes." There are those who think he's funny. I'm one of them... but your incredulity over people who don't is ridiculous. Humour is a very diverse thing...

Finally, I apologize for the quote explosion. I underestimated how many paragraphs there were or that I would respond to...

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Thanks posters, I got what I wanted, if not what I expected.

I wanted to understand the vituperation in the Condell backlash, what I got was more vituperation. "Hypocrite" and "forever tainted," as you probably read, have been added to "bigot" and "demagogue" in the unsubstantiated Condell claims department. This, for objecting to the Manhattan mosque and a publicity stunt vote that backfired? Really? His "support" for UKIP is laugh-worthy, not banishment-worthy. He's hardly marching on Bradford with a "Woggies Go Home" sign now, is he? (There wouldn't be any thin-skinned types on the hate Condell bandwagon would there? Or here in LoR? Heaven forbid!)

Condell is the most popular free thinker on YouTube, regularly drawing 200,000+ viewers per video. Clearly Condell has found a way to reach people beyond the familiar bubble of free thought advocacy. Those finding great fault in two indiscretions are dismissing the admirable job the man has done in reaching out to people with a good, if not 100% perfect, message.

Carl Sagan sums it up.

...the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: US vs. Them--the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive....