Talk:Pat Condell

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

*facepalm*

Pat Condell, on Twitter, about "Atheism+": [1] --ZooGuard (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"By “ignores Islamic misogyny,” he means that if we address Western sexism at all, we’re not talking about those nasty Muslims enough."

No, he means that people see sexism round every dark corner in the West but turn a complete blind eye to blatant Islamic domestic abuse. Somehow Muslims all get a free pass because liberals think they all have brown skin and therefore deserve special treatment because they're racists. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is why we see so little criticism of Muslims and their attitudes towards and treatment of women in the more "liberal" parts of Europe and in the liberal media... riiiiight... ScepticWombat (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Get Your Facts Straight

Condell has been accused of racism for his anti-Islamic views, a claim which he vehemently denies.

Islam is not a race. It is a religion. As atheists, are you racists for being against Christianity? How about the virulently anti-Christianity Hitchens? I guess he's a racist.

Religions are not a race.--67.171.191.98 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll change it to "bigot," and then you can stop whining. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 01:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

He has been accused of being a racist. It's not us who's describing him as such. Balaam (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"I'll change it to "bigot," and then you can stop whining." That's one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Do you even bother to find truth or labelling someone is your highest priority? This only proves Pat Condell words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk ^{— Unsigned, by: 5.197.3.125 / talk / contribs} 15:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

UPD Since big obsession of labelling on this site I decided to add some more labels. He has been accused of being a far right/nazi/white supremacist. It's not me who's describing him as such. We should tolerate multicultural criticism of his views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgkVchRW_5Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HabBb9Uka8 http://whypatcondellisntfunny.blogspot.com/2008/05/youtube-post-8-social-networking-proves.html Template:Uinsig 07:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

He has been accused of being a far right/nazi/white supremacist. It's not me who's describing him as such. You miss my point. The article mentioned that people have accused him of racism, and then followed the comment with a quotation from him denouncing the BNP's racism - it should have been obvious that we were not the ones making the accusation. That's quite different to including him in a racist or Nazi category. Balaam (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

EDL

Got a citation for him supporting the EDL? Balaam (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The BoN who added that hasn't edited the wiki since (or before) that time.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Some rant about Atheism+

ha! I noticed that both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins have praised the man's willingness to criticize idiocy. Now he's being derided as a hatemonger by some A+ blogging site. I guess what Condell said is true. If you question the PC orthodoxy, expect ignorance, and phony accusations of bigotry. I also noticed that they both supported him during the Youtube account removal fiasco, whatever some A+ person named Benson says. I may not agree with Myers, Dawkins or atheism; but are they now part of the right wing bigot conspiracy you people ramble on about? I thought you looked up to Dawkins and Myers. Did they get it wrong for standing with Condell against Islam? Rationalwiki indeed!^{— Unsigned, by: 173.22.37.6 / talk / contribs} 08:40, 12 July 2013‎ (UTC)

PZ Myers more recently told Pat Condell to go fuck himself in a post on FTB86.44.62.53 (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"Batshit crazy"

I don't think the "batshit crazy" category is appropriate. That's better suited to people like Jack Chick and David Icke, not any old reactionary Internet commentator. Balaam (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Because provocative criticism of islam is "batshit crazy", obviously. Right now I can't see the difference between this article and defamatory garbage written on bullshit Islamophobia Watch blog.^{— Unsigned, by: 92.39.81.126 / talk / contribs} 07:18, 30 July 2013‎ (UTC)

That's because there isn't any difference. He condemns the way many people always make excuses for it, so he's a racist. I also noticed that while they point out PZ Myers falsely claiming there aren't any feminists who turn a blind eye to Islam (in the name of political correctness no doubt), he and Richard Dawkins nonetheless praised and defended Condell when his account was threatened with removal. I guess anyone who doesn't go with the liberal consensus on any issue is irrational.^{— Unsigned, by: 173.22.37.6 / talk / contribs}

RationalWiki doesn't tend to be averse to criticism of Islam so I think he's in the category for his support of UKIP, a racist party. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

God help us but UKIP are quite mainstream and, despite my disdain and fear of them, I don't think they can be described as racist. I'm also unsure that condell is batshit crazy on the same grounds as described by Balaam --Barryjon (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I hereby retract my above statement. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

--Barryjon (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but be disgusted by the quality of this writing

Before you lecture me that this site doesn't aspire to be Wikipedia, I fully understand that point. But the sarcastic tone, casual insults and labeling are fine iff there are sound arguments behind them. Branding Condell a denialist? Please follow up with evidence that EDL is in fact racist in its core, which Condell is secretly aware of. Patronising Condell by telling him that "it's not helping" him? Please provide solid evidence that Condell supports BNP.

I have a problem with some contributors to this site because of this. It seems to me some people feel that they should get away with using ad hominem attacks (with little or no sound arguments to back up the insults), turning fact-based essays into opinionated claim-and-rebuttal sessions, and making this site less like "rational wiki" and more like "opinions forum" in general. Because, hey, we're not Wikipedia, and hence we should be the polar opposite of all its aspects, be it merits or faults, right? 202.171.163.5 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The article never accuses Condell of supporting the BNP. As for the EDL, this is what I wrote when I originally added that passage:

While his basic point in the video — that Islamic extremism is a bigger problem than the EDL — is legitimate, he ends up painting an unecessarily rosy picture of the organisation. His argument that the EDL's website is not objectionable does not stand up to close examination: Unite Against Fascism also sounds fine in principle, but Condell has no trouble condemning that group.

Someone later changed "unecessarily rosy" to "farcically rosy", which seems fair enough to me. I'm not sure why the paragraph was since removed. Balaam (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That was removed, surprisingly, by PSAL. Perhaps he confused it with Proxima's contributions.

The article itself is trafficked by BoNs who are either fans or anti-fans of Condell. The end result therefore tends to be... strange.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Pat's Politics

I think it is unfair to say that Pat “fawns” over UKIP, when he really just believes it to be the least horrible party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV3nOAg87R8

And then also unfair to imply he is to the right when he really isn’t: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk TofuTyphoon (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Islamophobia" and Anti-Feminism

I also don't think he really belongs in a portal that implies he hates all Muslims, and to have a picture of him implying this, when he doesn’t. Pat addresses that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIaGWURONRU

He also criticizes a specific subset of feminism that he believes to be poisoned by political correctness as a whole, not all feminism. He calls it “progressive” feminism, and he addresses it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbmeQtGMkUU It wasn't about the feminism linked in the article. TofuTyphoon (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not very inclined to watch his youtube videos but it sounds like a bit like Dawkins who claims to support "real feminism" but the bits he has a problem with are pretty much mainstream feminism. Does Condell praise Christina Hoff Sommers too? --SpecialFFrog (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a bad thing to be critical of Islamic doctrine. However, there's a fine line between legitimate criticism of Islam and anti-Muslim immigrant hysteria. Condell objected to the building of a mosque (wasn't really a mosque) near Ground Zero (also exaggerated), has expressed support for greater surveillance of mosques on alleged anti-terrorist grounds (but not exerting the same standard for white nationalist or other groups), has endorsed in a tweet Michael Oren's hypothesis that Obama is a secret Muslim (birther conspiracy) and has expressed implicit support for ethnic profiling (there was a loon watch article criticizing Sam Harris for supporting profiling and Condell criticized people who objected to profiling for being too PC). Again, it's okay to be critical of Islam, but when that transitions into support for xenophobic, anti-immigrant, far-right policies like ethnic profiling, torture of Islamic terrorists, shutting down mosques (as Harris, Maher and Hirsi Ali have provided implicit support to some of these policies), then we have a problem. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Biting the hand that feeds him

The title of this section does not help to give RationalWiki a good name.

The logic seems to be that if Condell is an atheist, then any movement with "atheism" in the name must automatically garner his undying support.

Atheism+ contains many things that many people disagree with, whether atheist or not.

This is pure snark, and a discredit to the project. — Auntie Fra (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)