Haha...I would love to run away from civilization and be primitive in nature.

I have been so busy with these 2 classes 4 nights a week, it is a lot of work. We've also been busy with Chase's baseball practices, and I have been sick of late...blah. Plus, reading is getting in the way, and I'm trying to finish this fabulous novel by an AN member here for a review. Also, writing is taking the back burner, but this rainy day might inspire and muse me (if I get my lazy ass up, get some coffee (though my throat still hurts), and put the pen to the paper...). Anyway...
How are you???

And, your eye is off my page...how sad. What have you been up to? sigh..

Your eye is almost off my page...one more block to go. Sigh...

Mmmm...Love the shadows!! ;)

I also agree wholeheartedly with what you say about the emergent beauty and order sometimes resulting from the relatively chaotic actions of individuals. It is a crucial aspect of this anti-movement (as I like to phrase it).

Precisely. Vision.

But I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of actual violence in the defense of an idea (bodily self-defense is certainly commendable however). Actual physical violence against persons to promote/defend an idea or to discredit an opposing idea seems self-defeating and hypocritical (if we consider that one argument against theistic morality is its history of attempting the impossible in forced conversion). It seems to fly in the face of the ideal of the free exchange of ideas.

I would condone and participate in vandalism, though, if the propaganda under attack were sufficiently vile (and I would do so in the spirit of the free exchange of ideas). I'm thinking here of the recent altercation between Christopher Hitchens and a group of neo-nazi thugs, which did indeed come to blows. I think he did the right thing both in vandalizing the poster and in physically defending himself from those who would promote their violent ideas with violence. Having the courage of your convictions sometimes necessarily means throwing some punches, since punches sometimes are substituted for courage in those who cannot otherwise defend their convictions.

Well said. An effective revolutionary will restrain his metaphorical "violence" against a prevailing pernicious idea or institution to those acts which make a point. Well-deserved ridicule is most effective when directed at the offending entity, rather than the person defending it. Regardless of the reaction of the person in question (which typically involves getting personally offended because of their emotional investment in the idea being ridiculed), there may be disinterested third parties who may take note of the appropriateness of the ridicule and alter their views accordingly. In this way room may be made for even the most acerbic forms of ridicule (I'm thinking here of Pat Condell's videos, for example) to be considered a part of strategy.

I like to keep in mind that the "Culture Wars" were not instigated by atheists, but by theists, and I don't mind that people might be offended by strongly worded polemics, so long as a decent point is being made (and if one isn't then I don't mind the "argument" itself being ridiculed). It should go without saying that ad hominem only impresses the kind of people you don't want on your "side."

To sum up, ridiculous ideas deserve and naturally attract ridicule, and until society overcomes the general taboo against ridiculing certain ridiculous ideas, ridiculing them must be a part of the strategy. The artificial immunity must be broken down, and this can be done intelligently as a means to an end. Atheist comedians, for example, make an art of this--inarticulate, apathetic trolls, as you point out, make rather a mess of it.

:p

Now, that's the spirit! Thanks for the sane comment. It's unfortunate that some people have no sense of humor or irony or respect...etc.