So it's been about 3 years since Wired published Gary Wolf's article
that introduced the term 'New Atheists'. I didn't care for the new label (or what it represents) then
, and I still don't.
But it's interesting to see it change. Originally, the article was on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Dan Dennett. Dennett is too much like Santa Claus (in both appearance and non-meanness) for the label to stick, so he seems to be being replaced by Hitchens (with the Four Horsemen
of New Atheism being a transitional form) and/or PZ Myers.
Recently, NPR did a story on the schism
in atheism, which essentially divides between the New Atheists (and the old?).
PZ apparently said, "Edgy is what young people like," Myers says. "They want to cut through the nonsense right away and want to get to the point. They want to hear the story fast, they want it to be exciting, and they want it to be fun." It sounds like he's pitching Hollywood product, rather than secularism. If the New Atheism really is about ten second films of the pope getting kicked in the nards, then it has to go.
I don't like baseball. I don't play baseball. I don't go to baseball games.
People like me have often been looked down upon; for decades, it was un-American to not like baseball. The majority sees something vaguely threatening and possibly communistic about those who do not enjoy the national pastime.
I'd try to argue with them. Tell them that if they'd been born in Canada, they might have grown up with an interest in curling or hockey. That there's nothing wrong with not liking baseball. But that was too foreign a concept for them.
Anyway, things have gotten better. People who don't like baseball banded together, and with the help of the ACLU and other likeminded fellow travellers, the legal barriers facing non-baseball likers were lifted. Schoolchildren could remain silent during the singing of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," jurors were no longer sworn in on a T206 Honus Wagner, and so on.
Stirred by these successes, the groups of non-baseball likers tried to figure out what to do next. Sure, there were still a few issues to be dealt with. Many states still had "Three Strikes" laws on the books, but it looked like they were going to remain there, despite the obviously unconstitutional mingling of ball and state.
But for the most part, there was just a room full of people not-playing baseball together. Pretty boring. Not much reason to join when you can not-play baseball at home. And these groups were recognizing that the only thing they had in common was not playing baseball.
Idle bat in idle hand too often turns to crimes unplanned, or whatever the phrase is.
So perhaps inevitably some of the bands of non-baseball players used their meetings to deride baseball:
"Baseball wouldn't flourish if parents didn't play catch with their children; it's child abuse."
"Baseball is just a big rip off. Do you know it's $10 for hot chocolate
at Yankee Stadium?"
"Did you hear about the baseball player arrested for drunk driving?" As if baseball had anything to do with drunk driving! Sure, there are some wonderful cases of baseball players who hypocritically tell their fans that drugs are an abomination forbidden by the rules, but who secretly get their hot androgen injections at a seedy motel from a 'personal trainer'. That's well worth criticizing. But more generally speaking, which is the more helpful message? Providing evidence that baseball likers and non-likers commit crimes at roughly equal rates, or shouting "A shortstop was arrested for tax evasion! Durr." Discussing the complicated phenomena of post-championship rioting and how it can be addressed, or just calling the rioters animals blinded by baseball, which oughtta be banned?
The answer seems obvious to me, but pretty soon some of these groups turned from non-baseball playing to active baseball-hating. Anything remotely connected with baseball was immediately anathema. Having formed a club of anti-baseball players, they need the baseball likers in order to explain the reason for their existence. If baseball vanished, then everyone would not-play baseball; but to be anti-baseball, you need a baseball to be your villain. And the way they deride baseball likers and baseball, it's certainly not likely that they are going to convince people to their side and reduce the influence of baseball.
It's a hazy line, and everyone will draw it a different place, but I can't really cheer on a lot of the antics of the new non-baseball playing. Not that I'm a milquetoast closet case non-baseball player. Most of my friends and family know I don't like baseball, and I have used this journal to present my argument that fair and foul do not exist as objective measurements, but are only purely subjective judgments. I think that kind of activity is the right way to engage the issue. I show through my life and actions that people who don't like baseball can be fine citizens. And I try to show the reasons I have for my beliefs, which might actually convince someone who's on the outfield fence of the issue, and only attends baseball games out of habit or familial devotion. Sure, nothing is going to penetrate the faith of a Cubs fan, but as much as I deplore some of the things that baseball can lead to, I don't see any reason to be a dick about it.
Like I said, the line is hazy, so no doubt I'm a dick from time to time.