I have a problem with how easily people can position themselves as authority figures in social movements which lack competition or standards to vet the candidates. A genuinely capable person might emerge regardless, but more through good luck than through a good process.
For example, Madalyn Murray O’Hair became America’s most famous atheist in the 1960′s and 1970′s because no one else wanted the job, not because she excelled at it compared with competitors. A mediocre but extroverted and opinionated woman willing to take risks could step into the void of the time and assume that title. Even during her life, many other atheists never bought into her cult of personality and considered her a charlatan.
By contrast, in today’s world, when many atheists have become minor celebrities, often with best selling books, and when atheists even in hick towns like Tulsa’s Seth Andrews can attract followings around the world by setting up websites and uploading podcasts and videos, Madalyn with that kind of competition wouldn’t necessarily stand out as particularly noteworthy.
I see a similar situation with today’s transhumanist scene. Any newcomer on the make with the right sort of personality (the sort I don’t have), willing to exploit social media to present controversial ideas as transhumanist philosophy, could persuade other people into accepting him as a transhumanist authority figure in a relatively short time. It would help if objective standards emerged to assess who deserves this kind of status and who doesn’t.
Now, Zoltan Istvan might do something eventually to show that he has the goods. In the meantime I have misgivings about his activities.
How sure are you that O’Hair became the speaker for American atheism because no one else wanted the job rather than because the media focused on her because she was annoying?
not because she excelled at it compared with competitors. A mediocre but extroverted and opinionated woman willing to take risks could step into the void of the time and assume that title.
Sounds like you described her “excelling at it compared with competitors” exactly one sentence after that sentence. Sure she might not have been the best that the movement could take a hold of but according to that description she did excel at it compared to her competitors.
Can you be more clear about what you meant to say?
O’Hair really is an interesting minor historical figure and also probably was the worst spokesperson American atheism possibly could have had, at least after the death of Jim Jones. She at one point attempted to defect to the Soviet Union because she approved of its official state atheism (which included brutal persecution of Christians, of course.) The Soviets rejected her, having been burned by western militant-atheist defectors before, like the Jonestown crew and of course, Lee Harvey Oswald. She also deliberately antagonized members of the media and publicly disowned her son when he converted to Christianity.
Okay, think of the movie version of The Blue Lagoon. It doesn’t work as a “love story,” because with only one boy and one girl on the island, they don’t have any alternative. They wind up in a sexual relationship by default, not because the boy has to compete with other boys to seduce the girl.
In Madalyn’s case, no one else wanted to become the country’s public face of atheism, so she managed to step into that role without having to push anyone else out of the way. And she managed to draw attention to herself afterwards because she lacked social anxiety and she said and did outrageous things which made her news-worthy, like filing harassing lawsuits against local governments for alleged breaches of church-state separation. Her boldness didn’t make her especially effective or look very competent. Instead many other atheists considered her a buffoon.
Since she was killed and mutilated by a fellow atheist, are you implying no one wanted her job because so many atheists are killers and associating with fellow atheists is dangerous?
You mean the ringleader, who the organization initially hired as a typesetter? That would be evidence of atheism, had he not joined with the intent of robbing the place. And he had this to say about his victim, according to this site:
“To simply label Madalyn an atheist, racist, homophobe, anti-Semite, etc., would be a tremendous misnomer. To her dubious credit, Madalyn Mays Murray O’Hair is an equal opportunity bigot, whose loathing of humanity is evenly dispensed without partiality.”
But sure, it’s not the situation I imagined. Maybe the real lesson is not to trust guys with mother issues.
I have a problem with how easily people can position themselves as authority figures in social movements which lack competition or standards to vet the candidates. A genuinely capable person might emerge regardless, but more through good luck than through a good process.
For example, Madalyn Murray O’Hair became America’s most famous atheist in the 1960′s and 1970′s because no one else wanted the job, not because she excelled at it compared with competitors. A mediocre but extroverted and opinionated woman willing to take risks could step into the void of the time and assume that title. Even during her life, many other atheists never bought into her cult of personality and considered her a charlatan.
By contrast, in today’s world, when many atheists have become minor celebrities, often with best selling books, and when atheists even in hick towns like Tulsa’s Seth Andrews can attract followings around the world by setting up websites and uploading podcasts and videos, Madalyn with that kind of competition wouldn’t necessarily stand out as particularly noteworthy.
I see a similar situation with today’s transhumanist scene. Any newcomer on the make with the right sort of personality (the sort I don’t have), willing to exploit social media to present controversial ideas as transhumanist philosophy, could persuade other people into accepting him as a transhumanist authority figure in a relatively short time. It would help if objective standards emerged to assess who deserves this kind of status and who doesn’t.
Now, Zoltan Istvan might do something eventually to show that he has the goods. In the meantime I have misgivings about his activities.
How sure are you that O’Hair became the speaker for American atheism because no one else wanted the job rather than because the media focused on her because she was annoying?
Sounds like you described her “excelling at it compared with competitors” exactly one sentence after that sentence. Sure she might not have been the best that the movement could take a hold of but according to that description she did excel at it compared to her competitors.
Can you be more clear about what you meant to say?
Disclaimer: I have no idea who this person is.
O’Hair really is an interesting minor historical figure and also probably was the worst spokesperson American atheism possibly could have had, at least after the death of Jim Jones. She at one point attempted to defect to the Soviet Union because she approved of its official state atheism (which included brutal persecution of Christians, of course.) The Soviets rejected her, having been burned by western militant-atheist defectors before, like the Jonestown crew and of course, Lee Harvey Oswald. She also deliberately antagonized members of the media and publicly disowned her son when he converted to Christianity.
You have never heard of Madalyn Murray O’Hair?
Okay, think of the movie version of The Blue Lagoon. It doesn’t work as a “love story,” because with only one boy and one girl on the island, they don’t have any alternative. They wind up in a sexual relationship by default, not because the boy has to compete with other boys to seduce the girl.
In Madalyn’s case, no one else wanted to become the country’s public face of atheism, so she managed to step into that role without having to push anyone else out of the way. And she managed to draw attention to herself afterwards because she lacked social anxiety and she said and did outrageous things which made her news-worthy, like filing harassing lawsuits against local governments for alleged breaches of church-state separation. Her boldness didn’t make her especially effective or look very competent. Instead many other atheists considered her a buffoon.
This makes more sense. Less champion and more default.
Can you name one that you think was plainly wrong? Because you’re talking about a murder victim, which may explain why “no one wanted” her job.
Since she was killed and mutilated by a fellow atheist, are you implying no one wanted her job because so many atheists are killers and associating with fellow atheists is dangerous?
You mean the ringleader, who the organization initially hired as a typesetter? That would be evidence of atheism, had he not joined with the intent of robbing the place. And he had this to say about his victim, according to this site:
But sure, it’s not the situation I imagined. Maybe the real lesson is not to trust guys with mother issues.