Tuesday, January 20, 2015

I Wish Christians Would Boycott Salon

What Salon giveth in an article by Cornel West, it taketh away in massive lies and distortions written by Michael Shermer, Patricia Miller,... And that's just what's on its "Most Read" list I consult as I write this.  Before the week is out, several other Christian bashers will have their stuff posted there, not to mention the massive lies contained in the comments on those articles from quasi- if not possibly from actual professional atheist hate talkers.*

The writing of atheists, online, has to count as the most massive, the most dishonest and the most stupidly accepted of hate-talk around today among those accepted as genteel and respectable in our media.   That what is clearly hate talk in the same tradition of old line antisemitism, when it's not, as well, antisemitic, as it is as often as what issues from the far right, is obvious. That it lies with the facility of someone who is a frequent fixture on FOX is obvious to anyone who knows much about the topics they trash.   Today I was told a lie at Salon from that massive source of lies and hate, Christopher Hitchens, that The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. wasn't a Christian but was a disciple of Gandhi, as if one couldn't be both.  I mean didn't these idiots even do that much research as to see Ian Charleson playing The Reverend Charles Freer Andrews in the movie?   The guy the real life Gandhi nicknamed "Christ's Faithful Apostle"?

When a webloid pushes the amount of hate talk and lies that Salon does, when it services a hate community of the kind its atheist commentators comprise, it needs to be protested, what better way than with a boycott?   I'd encourage someone with the voice to call for one to take it up.

*  Just as we know that the Chinese government hires people to troll comment sites and FOX has people on its staff who do, it's obvious that other interested parties with the ability to do it have professional trolls.   We also know from their boasts that groups such as the atheist promotion group "Guerrilla Skeptics for Wikipedia" organize to turn unmoderated sites into their tool.   It's irresponsible for an alleged news source to open itself up to that kind of use as Salon certainly does.  It is as clear that it is the benefit they gain from neo-atheists clicking on like trained monkeys in Skinner boxes is their most obvious motive.   Countering them with a loss of revenue from a boycott could get their attention to the problem.

Update:  No, I don't feel ashamed for pointing out that the late Christopher Hitchens was a documented liar and hate merchant,   He wasn't ashamed to tell a massively refuted lie about the Christianity of  The Reverend King, tacitly calling him a liar when he professed his religion, the basis of his profession and his activism.    Christopher Hitchens was a liar, that the atheism industry promotes him only proves my point about lies being entirely compatible with the non-morality of atheists.


  1. Salon links everything to click bait: the article still running after three days refers to Bill Maher in the headline, but not (IIRC) in the article. Or barely, at best.

    And then there is the monkey house of the commenters. As I've noted, the same virulent atheists who decry all religion and consider Xianity the root of all evil, praise MLK to the skies and never once note he was a Christian pastor (and what's this "he wasn't really a Christian" crap? Seriously?) The ones always screaming "CONTRADICTION!" can't see the log in their own eye.

    It's the wisdom of crowds, I guess. Ironic Salon runs an article about how peer pressure and social conformity guides most of our opinions/decisions about what we think. A thesis perfectly illustrated by the comments section at: well, Salon.

    Not that it's better elsewhere. Slate ran an article from Quora about why the "Middle Ages" weren't the "Dark Ages," and most of the comments attacked the article for "apologizing" for the Catholic church, the source of all evil between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.

    Of course, the fact the Empire rested on the brutality of the "Pax Romana" and that all roads lead to Rome because Rome existed to exploit the subjugated (and so eventually collapsed under the inability to keep exploiting the fringes for the benefit of Rome) is never considered in such discussion (the "light" of Roman civilization was a dim taper, indeed), nor are the contributions of the Church considered because we must focus on the Crusades (which everyone has heard of and no one knows anything about, but ignorance is bliss! And wisdom! And power, in an on-line argument!!!).

    Honestly, it's too much. Too much stupid, too much ignorance, too much nonsense. It's like trying to hold pack a tidal wave of swine offal from a factory farm where the pigs are packed together and the fecal matter is measured in acre-feet. The blogs that draw the most commentary draw the stupidest comments.

    And they thrive on it. Salon will never go broke underestimating the ignorance and stupidity of the average on-line atheist. Or their willingness to brag about how little they know, and how much they like it that way.

  2. I remember now one comment at Slate excoriating the "Dark Ages" because they forgot how to make concrete, as the Romans had done.

    Clearly the hallmark of human civilization is the ability to make and use concrete as a construction material.

    You can't make this stuff up.

  3. I've been junking a lot of the stuff that's been junking up my mind, thus my newest blog, and I'm going to stop reading the webloids as well. It's not worth my time to deal with the hate talkers who lie and who, true to atheists' disbelief in sin, don't believe it's a sin to lie. I'll deal with them this way from now on.

  4. "The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. wasn't a Christian but was a disciple of Gandhi, as if one couldn't be both. "


    "After long study and experience, I have come to the conclusion that [1] all religions are true; [2] all religions have some error in them; [3] all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism, in as much as all human beings should be as dear to one as one's own close relatives. My own veneration for other faiths is the same as that for my own faith; therefore no thought of conversion is possible."