Talk:Eric Hoffer

Hoffer was atheist

Not that you libturds care what I think, but it should probably be noted that hoffer was very skeptical of intervention on the whole, and that he himself was an atheist. Burkean (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If these statements are true, please add them to the article. Why did you begin your criticism of this article so combatively? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, libturds is quite mild compared to the usual fare one gets on this site, hardly combative, at least not in an overwrought sense. Second, I'm not really part of the rationalwiki community. By and large I do not share their views and they are quite dismissive of those who don't think as many or most of them do (not that this attribute is something unique to the rationalwiki crowd). I just found it extremely ironic that people who often seem quite proud of how well informed they are didn't even bother to look into the fact that Hoffer himself was an atheist.

His view that atheism will or could be a religion all it's own seems rather plausible when you consider that many people who are atheists did not arrive at that position because of some thoroughly scientific understanding (like Richard Dawkins), nor are they necessarily even intelligent or well informed people. They simply chose not to believe in God. They don't know anymore than the scientist or the theologian and many of them indeed know a great deal less than either. They simply live their lives as though there were no creator or hereafter. Many atheists are quite dogmatic, try to convert others, and dismiss alternatives as "not the truth". This is quite similar to the behavior I've seen from many religious believers.

How atheists in general would behave if they were the ones in power, or if they weren't such a small minority of the world's population, is difficult to determine because so many people are believers of one form or another, and because atheists are still subject to all the same human foibles and weaknesses as everyone else. Unless of course one wishes to consider belief in the supernatural a weakness, in which case atheists are immune to that weakness, provided they aren't an atheist who subscribes to something besides the supernatural which is equally "implausible".

In any case, it seems with most atheists I've talked to, the argument tends to go something like: "When religious people do something wrong, it's often because of their religion, but when atheists do something wrong, it is rarely if ever because of their atheism." Such a statement is highly debatable and to my mind a clear example of trying to have it both ways. Doubtless most atheists (and members of the rationalwiki community) would disagree.

As to the Vietnam question, anyone who has read The Temper Of Our Time could hardly describe Hoffer as a "Hawk" and still be thought of as an intelligent person. Consider this passage:

"the better part of statesmanship might be to know clearly and precisely what not to do, and leave action to the improvisation of chance...it might be wise to wait for enemies to defeat themselves". Hoffer was simply dismissive of the anti-war and civil rights movements because he thought mass movements tended not to encourage productive or individual thinking, and tended to engage in simple minded antagonistic "us versus them" politics. When one looks at the single minded and dismissive behavior of the anti-war movement, their attempt to silence their critics on campus, the militancy, their attempt to control and change institutions so that their views and ideas became accepted truth, it seems that Hoffer's diagnosis was correct. When we look at the willingness of the civil rights movement to embrace ideologies that often had little or no truth in them (communism, also embraced by many anti-war activists), and how the movement devolved into terrorism against those who never harmed a black person in their life, and the rampant violence (ironically, also embraced by many anti-war activists), I'd say Hoffer's diagnosis was again accurate.

You asked me why I would not add that Hoffer really wasn't a hawk to the article. Why not add that Hoffer was an atheist even though he defended the importance of religion in society. Multiple times I have made edits to rationalwiki which I think most people would say were at least reasonable, and they were either tampered with or removed entirely. HL Mencken often espoused libertarian viewpoints. I attempted to put this in the HL Mencken article. It was subsequently removed and replaced with a quote by Mencken which supposedly demonstrated that he was against unregulated capitalism. If one checked the source, they found that it wasn't really what Mencken said in full context. They also seemed rather obsessed with maintaining that Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. So, the real question is, why would people who, again, pride themselves on being intelligent, well informed individuals (rational and all that) not even bother to include information on a person which one wouldn't even have to dig that deep for? Information which is in fact available (and sourced) on Hoffer's Wikipedia page? That doesn't seem like something an informed person would do, but oh well. Quite frankly I could care less. It's a pain in the neck to do, and as I said, my edits are often removed. Perhaps one of them will decide to include the information at some point. Even if they don't, people can read Hoffer's wiki page and find out for themselves. Burkean (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: 200 characters. Response: 5,000 characters. Oh, joy. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Beginning a criticism of the article with "Not that you libturds care what I think, but..." suggests that you consider discussion to be meaningless. That, to me, suggests combativeness - if discussion is meaningless, then the only point of posting is to attack the viewpoints of others.

Your points on whether Hoffer's theories are valid are irrelevant to your original question. I see no reason why Hoffer's atheism could not be added, especially if you can provide a source to back it up.

Your points on your edits to the H.L. Mencken article do not appear as valid as you make them out to be. In your edit: You began with "Nice try assholes, the full quote is this:", which is (1) combative and (2) should not be part of the article, but part of the talk page; you placed "(now here comes the part you fucking quote mined)", which is (1) combative and (2) should not be part of the article, but part of the talk page; you ended with "You people are so fucked.", which is (1) combative and (2) should not be part of the article, but part of the talk page; and you placed all of this under the shorter quote, which made it duplicate. Your edit was not reverted because of closemindedness, but because you approached the change of the quote wrong. I have readded the quote, and I believe it will stick.

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

First off, let me say that I appreciate the edits you contributed to the HL Mencken page, even if there is still much dishonesty in the article (which of course, is not your fault). If you wish to find a link which confirms his atheism, you're welcome to it. Thomas Bethell in Eric Hoffer: The Longshoreman Philosopher said that Hoffer often described himself as atheist. It's hard to think of a reason that Bethell would embellish here, although he works for the Hoover Institution, which is the dark side as far as most people on this website are concerned. I'm not sure it's relevant to the discussion, but Hoffer also once said that the opposite of faith was not atheism but more like the "apatheism" (to borrow someone else's phrase) of modern society. Burkean (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your complaint was that you felt that something was preventing you from adding Hoffer's atheism to the article. I see nothing preventing you. If you truly wish to add this to the article, please do so. Thank you for the discussion. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if the amount of text I wrote was tedious, but if you remember I had two complaints. One was that my edits might be removed or changed. I agree with you that my tone on the HL Mencken main page was unwarranted (though people on this site have often paradoxically accused me of being a tone troll). That, however does not explain the Michael Jackson incident (why are they so insistent that he wasn't a pedophile?). Secondly, I am not interested and it is a hassle. The only link I can find to Bethell's book is the link in amazon. In other words, I have the book in front of me, but cannot find it as a source to cite. Anyone can read the book if they wish. If you can find something, you're welcome to add it. Quite frankly, it's not worth my time. If anyone else cares enough to correct another one of rationalwiki's oversights, then more power to them. Good day. Burkean (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you wanted, you could always cite the book itself.

I do not understand. If there is a problem in this article, and you consider it important enough to bring it up on the talk page, why not add it to the article? What is the purpose of raising criticisms if you are not willing to fix them? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to point out the apathy (or perhaps hypocrisy) on my part. I was just saying that one would've thought what Hoffer ACTUALLY thought and said (he wasn't particularly pro-intervention, nor was he a believer) might have been taken into consideration, especially since the person/persons who wrote this article show nothing to site their claim that he was a big Vietnam war fan. This is also ironic in light of the accusation leveled at me that I say people said this or that when they didn't. Burkean (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

He's Burkean. It's his job to waste everyone's time with overly long paragraphs that accomplish nothing while refusing to add a few words here or there in the actual article. Also what's this about Michael Jackson? We included the accusations on his page. ClothCoat (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Golly gee, cloth. Thanks for the constructive criticism. I don't think it's particularly asinine to just point out something is poorly researched. I don't think I should have to shut up about it just because I don't want to do editing. As for the Michael Jackson issue, yes you added my edit. Then, someone was allowed to put into the article that his fans thought he was innocent. Now, just imagine that in a Rush Limbaugh article, you allowed someone to type "however, most of fans say this is not true and that he is a legitimate news source". If you want to get to the truth of whether or not Michael Jackson was a pedophile, (many people agree signs point to yes) asking his fans who are notoriously rabid (cultish even) might not be the best way of doing it. Burkean (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, but I'm tickled by the fact that Burkean's bitching about the article is longer than the article itself. It's amazing how much fault can be found with so little. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really so petty, Inquisitor. Whether or not Hoffer was an enthusiastic supporter of the Vietnam war is fairly important. Also, no effort is really made to point out that a person devoted to atheism can be just as uncompromising and inflexible as a religious believer and that even though he believed there to be no God, it does not mean that there might not indeed be negative consequences from the shift to a godless worldview, for society and so forth. Contrary to what Christopher Hitchens might have said, atheism does not and should not have to mean anti-theism. By the way, I'm glad I could provide you with so much amusement. Burkean (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)