In the second coming of the second coming of Irreligiosophy, Matt and Chuck tackle CS Lewis, his life and times, some of his fiction and non-fiction, and finally his most well-known piece of apologetic, “Mere Christianity.” In the middle we get sidetracked discussing the misogyny of 1940s apologetics as compared and contrasted to the 21st century atheist-skeptical movement.
After everything is said and done, we really only get through the preface and Book One, but it still compares well to the supernatural but quite real standard I like to call the “Law of Podcast Nature.” It’s just like the law of gravity but better.
129 Responses to “2.2 Mere Christianity”
You asshole! You fuck my mother! I eat your shit!
Is Felipe the rear end of the Human Centipede? Can’t wait to hear the multi-orgasm that is the second coming of the second coming. It’s got to be better than any book with a character named Assland in it.
There is a new(ish) book out now that claims Mormonism was lifted heavily from The Travels of Marco Polo
http://theldslife.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-book-of-mormon-vs-travels-of-marco.html
Being scholarly and educated, what is your take on this?
You ending the podcast early violated my higher moral law of my right to hear the entire podcast…. I am very disappointed in you. Is the other half going up next week?
Maybe it’s just that I’m getting old and senile, but I cannot determine a way to download your podcast as I have done so often in days of yore. Your new website is spiffy, but I don’t want to have to sit there and stare at it while I listen to your words of wisdom. Can you explain how to download please.
Minus
p.s. vulva
Right-click on the bolded “second coming” link above and click on “Save As …” or just download it from iTunes.
And yeah, the next part is going up in one week. It’s already been recorded. We may have 4 full weeks of podcasts this month, depending.
Not Jesus: I downloaded the book on my Kindle and will look into it. Sounds interesting.
To me, this is pretty damning: http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/holleymaps.htm
Just for the record, there are atheists who are moral realists/absolutists. I disagree with much of C.S. Lewis, but I do agree with him that ethical precepts can in principle be objective facts of nature. In fact, the only such law I can make a reasonable argument for rules out religion. I wrote a blog post about it:
http://etceterology.com/blog/2013/1/13/moral-realism
The objective moral law that you propose is “it is morally wrong to base your working knowledge on a demonstrably inferior epistemology.” Why is that morally wrong, as opposed to just simply not a good idea? What is objectively unethical about basing your working knowledge on emotions? And does this really reflect reality? Do we really act toward others in this way? Do we think someone has a flawed moral compass if they choose to use Newton’s equations over Einstein’s to plot a trajectory through spacetime, even though Einstein’s are demonstrably superior? Should we look down upon such a person?
Your claim is that this objective moral law is an “unavoidable consequence of four facts of nature — 1) Our actions affect the world, including other people, 2) We base our actions upon our knowledge, 3) We acquire knowledge during our lifetimes, 4) some methods of acquiring knowledge are better than others.”
What argument leads you from premises 1 through 4 to a conclusion of “it is morally wrong”? Hidden deep inside your argument, somewhere, is a smuggled premise with a value judgment, such as “causing human beings to suffer is morally wrong.” This value judgment, whatever it may be, is not objective, does not exist outside you, cannot be discovered or tested by other researchers, and I would hazard to guess that it would not even be universally agreed upon (so it would not even meet a criteria of intersubjectivity, much less objectivity).
So yes, I agree that there are atheists who accept a moral realism/objectivity of morals. They’re just wrong.
Following Newton instead of Einstein in cases where it matters leads you to do things like spending millions of dollars on GPS satellites that are miles off, or crashing on a planet. If you did this not out of ignorance, but because you willingly chose to follow Newton despite clear evidence available to you of Einstein’s corrections, then yes, that’s a moral failure. Garden-variety creationists are just idiots, but you can’t, for example, call Behe that. He’s actually seen the evidence, and understands it, and chooses to ignore it. That’s not an intellectual lapse, it’s a moral one.
As I said, that’s my best guess for what an objective moral law might look like, assuming such a thing exists. I am assuming that any reasonable person would find it wrong to act in such as way as might thwart his values, whatever they might be. If he is acting on knowledge of the world that he has sufficient evidence to see is mistaken, then he is acting in a way that may thwart his values. This would certainly apply as equally to someone who valued suffering as to one who did not. “Don’t throw me in the briar patch.”
You might be correct that I am smuggling in other assumptions, but I don’t think they are values. Unless maybe you think it’s a value to want to accomplish your own goals? I suppose someone might genuinely want random outcomes, but then why bother with reason at all in that case?
I freely admit that I can’t come up with an example of what an objective value might look like. But I still can’t rule out the idea. If values are inherently subjective, then what does the sentence “The moral values of humanity have improved over time” mean, exactly? Or do you think that sentence is meaningless, and the fact that humans in general now reject slavery more than they did in the past is not an improvement, just an arbitrary change that might have gone the other way?
On the question of “what sort of atheist was Lewis?” I always thought he was someone who was angry at god but was always looking for a reason to believe.
I remember loving the Narnia books as a (young) child, but by the age of about nine just got sick of the blunt force trauma of being hit over the head with his allegory. I read the Space Trilogy in my early teens and quite enjoyed the first two (while recognising the heavy-handed analogies, but I was comparing it with space fantasies like Edgar Rice Burroughs I was also reading at the time), but That Hideous Strength is genuinely one of the worst books I have ever read. I’ve never read Mere Christianity, but struggled through the short Screwtape Letters suggests my time could be much, much better spent.
“Following Newton instead of Einstein in cases where it matters leads you to do things like spending millions of dollars on GPS satellites that are miles off, or crashing on a planet.”
But isn’t that just a waste of money? Absent a value judgment (“it is wrong to waste money that could have fed a human being in need”) it seems like thwarting your own goal isn’t immoral but simply a waste of time and resources. You would need an extra step in there to tell me why wasting my own time and resources (or thwarting my own goals) is necessarily immoral, or blameworthy, or worth condemnation — from either a consequentialist ethical perspective or a deontological one.
“If values are inherently subjective, then what does the sentence ‘The moral values of humanity have improved over time’ mean, exactly?”
Relative to my own ethics, the reduction of slavery in modern times is an improvement. I don’t claim that my ethics are in any way objective, just carefully reasoned from several inherently subjective premises.
For the sake of argument, what do you think is morally wrong about slavery? This might help you to highlight your own smuggled premises, because based on the four premises you gave in support of the objective moral law, slavery does not seem to be dismissed outright. In fact, enslaving another person may help me acquire more knowledge in my lifetime, or make it easier for me to reach my own goals.
You mentioned Mere Christianity and Chronicles of Narnia as being the most well know works by Lewis. I was brought up in a non-religious home and asides from Narnia the only thing I knew of Lewis was the Screwtape Letters.
Mere Christianity may be well know in christian apologetic and academic circles but when you take into account how few Christians even read the Bible it seems unlikely that it’s absence would be noticed by the general public if all CS Lewis’s works “were to disappear entirely from the planet”.
I actually completely forgot about the Screwtape Letters (I read it in college). But for evangelical Christians, Mere Christianity is huge — whether they know it or not, the vast majority of them use arguments first put forth by Lewis in MC.
I just spent the whole day saying “mere christianity” with a smug british accent in my head. Thanks!
Good questions.
Certainly it’s not a moral issue to waste your own time an resources just for fun–but “fun” is a value in that case. If you specifically claim, though, that your goal is to build a working GPS system, and you fail, then you can’t claim after-the-fact that wasting the money was your value all along. This to me is just part of what “moral” means–to have values, and to act in support of them. I think there is indeed a hidden assumption here, but it is just that such a thing as “moral values” exist at all. If they do, then what it means to have a moral value is that you think some state of the world is “better” in some way than some other state of the world. To act morally is to take those actions more likely to bring about that “better” state. Willfully ignoring facts of reality relevant to those actions has moral import, regardless of what that world-state might be.
—
So, “Moral values have improved over time” means “by our (subjective) values”. OK. I’ll assume, then, that “Our atheist values are superior to Christian values” means “…by our standards” (which would be tautological). Of course, Christians believe that they’re values are likewise superior to ours. You must claim, then, that the fact that we each rejected Christianity for atheism is because of our personal preferences, not because we find them superior in some objective sense. OK again. Then why do we speak out? Why do we laugh at and ridicule faith-heads? Is it just self-expression, or do we want others to come to agree with us? If the latter, why? Is it just selfishly so that those others will support our subjective goals, or don’t we really think that ours are superior in some way, and we altruistically want them to share our enlightenment?. If the former, then you’re consistent, and I can’t for the moment carry my argument further. But I believe, and I think most other atheists believe, that our values really are *inherently superior* in some way that we may not be able to articulate. There may be some who honestly believe otherwise, but I think even most of those who *claim* subjectivity do so because it’s easier to understand and defend, not because they truly believe it. I’m personally more willing to admit my own ignorance of a good case for objective values than to give up defending what I honestly believe just because it’s hard. At least until I see better evidence that my belief is actually wrong, not just hard to justify.
—
Why I oppose slavery is complex, and a bit off-topic. In my original essay, after all, I clearly said that I can’t say slavery is wrong without bringing in values. I sure that 90% of why I oppose it is my own subjective revulsion. But perhaps I can point to a possible line of reasoning that might get close (though admittedly I stray perilously close to the naturalistic fallacy here). Human beings are currently unique in our ability to imagine possible futures, discuss and compare options, and act to bring about long-term goals. This objectively requires interacting with other humans. Ricardo’s law is a fact of nature. Taking advantage of Ricardo’s law requires different people to develop different abilities and desires to gain from their interaction. Slavery buries the desires and abilities of slaves, making them into machines that serve only their master’s desires, greatly restricting their possible contribution to the diversity and prosperity of all minkind, even their masters.
I’m sure I could think of some other lines of reasoning with some work. Thanks again for the questions.
I just wanted to comment on how awesome it is that you’re back. I think I just did. Huzzah!
So, “Moral values have improved over time” means “by our (subjective) values”. OK. I’ll assume, then, that “Our atheist values are superior to Christian values” means “…by our standards” (which would be tautological). Of course, Christians believe that they’re values are likewise superior to ours. OK again. Then why do we speak out? Why do we laugh at and ridicule faith-heads?
That tautology works only for the most general of terms. The specific value at play here would be “concern for truth.” Fortunately both Christians and atheists claim to have a concern for truth but differ as to the method of discovering that truth. So here we can argue, ridicule, mock, etc — a “burning in the bosom,” for example, is not a reliable method of truth-determination despite the claims of Mormonism. Believing that we can establish the miraculous occurrence of a specific Jew in Palestine rising from the dead 2,000 years ago is laughable. Christians like William Lane Craig will try very hard to argue this point, but only rarely do you hear any of them say, “I don’t care if Christianity is false, I’d still believe in it.”
I have actually heard this twice, about Mormonism, because the people in question liked the social aspects of the religion more than they cared about its truth. To those people, I can only sigh and say, “Okay, fine.” It seems pointless to argue that they should value truth more highly than comfort in their subjective view of the world — even though for me, truth wins out.
Here’s an in depth reading of Mere Christianity from an atheist perspective. It’s well worth a watch.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL29857556DB7AB87D
Just wanted to say I love the new co-host of Irreligiosophy, Chuck. I’m pleased at the absence of discussion about penises, occassional junk reference notwithstanding. That’s a refreshing change, plus a six-show record! Congrats. Glad you are back, love you as Medical Messiah and Matt as Anthropological Apostle, and I look forward to helping you violate the word of wisdom as soon as I can.
I am surprised no one here went all Men’s rights on the comments. I mean with 15 or 20 fans I would expect 35 people to chime in about how much they love their misogynistic ways. All I could say at that part was, I wish I could have put it that well. I know I don’t want to be associated with such hateful people, so cut the cancer out, so to speak.
The podcast needs to be three hours. THREE I SAY.
Also, a challenge. See if you guys can read my user name properly. Most can’t.
*Slow clap*
No wait, I mean *Slow applause”.
And the answer to your question is “Yes. Yes, he in fact is a misogynist”.
And it doesn’t matter if you are talking about Lewis or that other guy.
Loved the podcast before, think it’s even better now. Among all the skeptic and atheist podcasters out there, Chuck is one of the best.
Wow. I’ve never been so glad to see TL;DR textwalls that are actually on the frigging topic.
I was just dropping by to see whether Chuck had set off a misogynist firestorm. Evidently not.
Make more podcasts, you lazy arseholes.
Is it misogynistic if I say I don’t like Rebecca, and didn’t like her before elevator-gate and for reasons unrelated to it? It doesn’t bother me to the point that I do anything more than not listen to Skeptics Guide anymore (which has gone downhill regardless of hosts I don’t enjoy), so I’m not sure if I’m the target of the accusations really.
I’ve never been to a “skeptics conference” or what-not, nor do I plan to, so I really can’t comment on any objectification/sexism that occurs at those. If there is a lack of respect/misogynistic atmosphere there, then that is a problem that needs to be addressed. Chuck did make a good point with his “they leave these dogmatic faiths only to end up in an even more sexist/bigoted atheist atmosphere” comment. That’s something that should not be.
But, again, I disliked Rebecca before elevator-gate, because I found her to be annoying and somewhat uninformed. Maybe I am a raging sexist pig. Hmm. Anyway, here’s the firestorm you guys were hoping for?!
Disliking Watson is one thing. Following her around on various blogs, spewing out hate mail after each appearance, or petitioning conferences to reject her as a potential speaker because of her views on feminism is another.
I guess I’m indifferent toward Ms. Watson; I’m not a huge fan but I just don’t understand all the hate. I’ve never been to a skeptic or atheist conference either, and the problem is, the more I hear about them the less I want to go. I’m probably wrong, but at this point I suspect that they’re filled with middle-aged white males like “Thunderf00t” who all stand around patting each other on the back for being so smart in rejecting Bigfoot, UFOs, alternative medicine, and various gods.
I’m liking Novella less and less. His exchange with PZ where he tries to carve out an exception specifically for atheism separate from the skeptical movement or what he calls “scientific skepticism” is ludicrous. I suspect he is simply trying to prevent any backlash that might come with publicly challenging religion (as opposed to alternative medicine, or ghosts, or UFOs) when he studiously avoids the topic on SGU, but he’s being philosophically inconsistent. Skepticism provides the tools, atheism seems to be the inevitable result of applying those tools to religious claims.
I like what you said about Shermer.
Heh.
I especially like it because one of you cited having a daughter. Well quite. Shermer mentioned in his “response” in Free Inquiry that he has a daughter. That makes it all the sadder that he didn’t stop himself before saying “it’s more of a guy thing.”
Honestly, Chuck, I’ve had the nagging suspicion that patting each other on the back for being smart is what the whole “skeptical movement” has been really about, let alone skeptic conferences–the majority of content seems to go towards debunking stuff that doesn’t really matter all that much, like Bigfoot etc. That’s why I enjoy podcasts like The Thinking Atheist that are more geared towards letting atheists with actual life problems vent a little. And I make no bones about being pure snark that’s just 99% for entertainment value.
Yes , Chuck , your second coming “co-host” is a lovable jolly loyal friend and best man , but the angst and passion in the dialogue with Leighton was what stirred thoughtful and informed reflection , and it sounds like you are aware of the missing ingredient ….. , may it be rekindled in some form .
On my journey through irreligiosophy , I have wanted to rise above intolerance and hold to the value of respect for the perspective of the other to and revere the humanity in the bastards!
>>>Right-click on the bolded “second coming” link above and click on “Save As …” or just download it from iTunes.<<<
I hate iTunes and have as little to do with it as possible. Since the internet started, the universal way of denoting a clickable link is to underline it. I find this same problem on a lot of pre formatted blog type sites these days… no underline and thus a PIA to find the darn download link. Can't you add a and tag to the actual audio file link?
I added some underlining. I hope that helps.
its about time you dickholes got rid of that terrible music to open your podcast. if ever we should meet i shall kick you in the nuts for making me hear that for all those years.
carry on
I would dig deeper into the “skepticism” movement, rather than just a cursory glance at debunking shows like Not Finding Bigfoot, or Washed Up Celebrity Ghost Stories. True, it is fun debunking things like Bigfoot, but there are truly harmful things that skeptics uncover. The skeptical journalists who found out about Te’o and his fictional girlfriend and Lance Armstrong and his injectible Gatorade are prime examples. People like Randi(the Amazing) uncovered Peter Popoff bilking his flock for millions of dollars are important and can save a lot of tragedies from happening. Skeptics investigate and get removed from the market things like PowerBands, Homeopathy, and Cure All Nasal Sprays invented by elementary teachers. They also get threatened with Blasphemy laws when they uncover a statue of the Virgin Mary is really just sewage leaking from a broken pipe. Watch Penn and Tellers Bullshit for some good skepticism and gratuitous nudity. I certainly don’t agree with all their positions, particularly 2nd Hand Smoking and Global Warming because they tend to favor Libertarian ideals rather than critical thinking, but it forces me to think about things I do believe in, like Recycling and NASA. Critical thinking should be at the core of what being a skeptic is all about. I enjoy Chuck’s shitty little podfart because he actually tries to inject some critical thinking into the vast Internet toilet. This may not be a “skeptical” podcast but it’ll do pig, it’ll do.
I have no problem with skepticism as a set of tools. I have a problem with skepticism as a movement.
But then I’ve always self-identified as an atheist rather than a skeptic. To me, it’s a no-brainer that everyone should be skeptical of all claims and especially those made with no supporting evidence. But those claims with the most potential for serious, long-term harm in my state and country have to do with religion.
So other people can get their kicks debunking Bigfoot, ghosts, UFOs, dowsers, alternative medicine, and so on. I feel like they’ve been debunked a thousand times before, but that’s fine. I do get irritated when skeptics debunk everything under the sun that may be fishy with the single exception of religion, or claim that religious claims have some sort of special purview that isn’t included in regular skepticism.
Hey Chuck
I sure don’t miss all the penis ‘jokes’ and the weird anti-halfofthehumanrace comments. I wasn’t aware that the elevator-gate thing was still on-going. It was good to hear some more news on it.
As a point of discussion; The guys that are sending Rebecca Watson hate-mail are complete dicks and shouldn’t be tolerated. However (and this is in no way a cover for unacceptable behavior) in this internet linked world it’s so much easier for such things to happen, and in fact it’s not at all surprising that it is happening. But, it’s certainly beholding to those at the top, such as Schermer to not come out with shite and provide tacit cover for morons when it does happen.
I’ve never been to a skeptical conference, so I have no idea, but are such people a significant minority within the attendees? For anyone on this forum who’s been to TAM or similar, what’s your take on the general behavior of folks there towards women?
My own take on the whole thing is that for me it’s not so much about womens’ rights, as it is about human rights. Denying equal rights to more than half of the population is completely idiotic and I think undermines society. It affects us all. To deny people equal standing holds us ALL back. It’s the same for any segment of society, to deny equal rights for gays, or women or religious people or non-relgious people is an attack on everyone.
I have to say, it was good to hear the segment where you went on, what sounded like, an unplanned rant against misogyny. I found it good to have an update on what’s happening out there. I know you said previously that you weren’t interested in doing a news show, but perhaps occassional segments like that would be appreciated.
Regarding the recent debate between PZ and Steve Novella, which I caught a bit of, I think Steve of course is right to say that all should be welcome. However, he’s ignoring (willfully or otherwise) the point made by PZ, ie when atheists start doing talks at big conferences there are murmurings on the blogosphere about how the atheists should feck off and get their own conferences for fear that the religiously minded in the audience might be offended. There does seem to be a double-standard at work (from my admittedly far off perspective).
Anyhow Chuck, good listening to you as always. Perhaps try and get a female co-host for the show. Any female listeners here that have a good grounding in critical-thinking skills/philosophy/science?
Cheers, CW
Hi Chuck. You should consider going on the podcast Reap Sow Radio. It is a free form podcast that has been of late discussing this whole controversy.
To be honest, I find the whole thing to be exhausting, but I am not convinced that either side is without fault and completely innocent. I admire the work that you do, and I’d love to hear you discuss this stuff on Reap Sow Radio.
Analyzed Atheist
I always love the podcast, but I was especially happy with this episode. Thanks for addressing the feminism thing: I couldn’t have agreed more.
Great show. Thank you for airing talking about the huge amount of sexism and misogyny in the atheist/skeptic movements. It could probably be the basis for more shows.
It really is terrific to have you back, Chuck, and Matt is definitely a welcome addition. Couldn’t agree with you more on the sexism issue. Bravo.
Thanks for diving into the sexism debacle that has taken place. So hard to get a good understanding of who said this, that and what.
I think some things have are became a mountain of ant hill. (def not the rape stuff…that’s disgusting)…but yeah that there is a schism? really? we are supposed to tweak things out no? changed some perspectives and opinions of people (not for the better in this case). but that dawkins/shermer are like ted haggard? really? is that not a bit black & white thinking?
i’m confused about that.
For what it’s worth, Chuck, I do miss the penis jokes.
🙁
Man. I need to proofread before I comment. BTW I am so glad that the podcast is back. Thank you!
I like Matt too. Creates a different feel than v. 1.0 but it is a welcome change.
I am a little surprised at your stance of not supporting skepticism as a movement and that you know skeptics who avoid the topic of religion. Maybe it is a local thing. I am involved in both local and national skeptical groups and religion and gods come up all the time, too much in my opinion. I don’t feel that religion is evil, it can be obviously. I am atheist, but I am also aware that Ayn Rand and Karl Marx were both atheists, and two more different views on society could hardly be imagined, so its not like getting rid of religion will solve the world’s problems. For me, a movement for critical thinking (skepticism) is important and helps avoid dogmatic thinking whether it be religion, political parties or anything. My wife is a respiratory therapist who works in the busiest trauma center in Columbus Ohio, I am a psychologist and we both see so much woo that threatens adults, children and even animals (a woman recommended acupuncture for my dog!) that it is hard not to want to start a movement to get people to think more skeptically. You of all people should know that it is not a no brainer to think without using logical fallacies and how hard it is to drop all of the brain washing our religious parents and culture did to us. It takes a lot of work and education to overcome those things. A movement shows support and supplies necessary tools. We try to form groups in schools and find most kids and people have never heard of logical fallacies nor understand doublespeak of politicians and religious leaders. I gave both of my high school daughters Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein’s 3 books on philosophy, politics and death and they ended up passing them to all of their friends and were able to remember the concepts because they used jokes to illustrate the philosophical arguments. A teacher actually took one away and I had to pick it up from school because she thought it was a dirty joke book they were passing around. Most high schools don’t ask you to think, they just want you to remember and repeat, so I disagree with you. I feel like skepticism and critical thinking is extremely important as a movement, and I actually recommend your show to a lot of people to think more critically of religion. Oddly, no one has brought up your old Irrewhatever 1.0 show where the One Who Must Not Be Named reenacted the meeting of Rebecca Watson in the elevator. That was one of the few bits that kind of turned my stomach. Kind of like Tosh telling rape jokes. You could have done a really good show on sexism in the skeptical movement, but you chose to do a silly skit with TOWMNBN acting lewd. Now I hear you distancing yourself from that? O how the fickle finger of fate points. And thank you for getting rid of that fucking faux Harold Faltermeyer drivel you had for music. Suckit.
“The One Who Must Not Be Named”
Holy Shit! Prince was on the show!?
Damn, I missed that episode. 🙁
“I am involved in both local and national skeptical groups and religion and gods come up all the time, too much in my opinion.“
And that’s my problem with the skeptical movement/skeptics in a nutshell. I’m all for debunking ridiculous claims. But there seems to be some sense of superiority that religious claims are less important but debunking alternative medicine or Bigfoot for the umpteenth time should somehow take precedence.
In summary: critical thinking, good. Skeptics who carve out an exception for religion or somehow think addressing religious claims is less important or beneath them: this podcast is not for you.
Just listened to the show… my 2 cents on the misogyny thing. First of all, I love women. I absolutely support equality for women and I agree with chuck about freaks who spend their time harassing Rebecca Watson.
But, truth be told, when I’m with my buddies (male friends) we do make jokes that could be seen as misogynistic. It’s just talking shit amongst guys. It’s funny and we all understand that the shock value just makes it funnier. In real life, we are all respectful of our wives and women in general.
Irreligiosophy with Leighton had that feel (guys talking shit). Sure, he went too far sometimes but that’s what kept the show kinda edgy. You never really knew what Leighton would say next. I hope Irreligiosophy 2.0 isn’t going to turn into something too PC. Part of Irreligiosophy’s charm was its “fuck you, if you don’t like it” attitude. I get the feeling that Chuck is trying to keep that alive with the swearing but (although I like him) I’m not sure Matt is the right counterbalance.
Anyway, still love the show and I’ll keep listening no matter what.
@Horatio
Good points and I understand where you’re coming from regarding laddish culture. However, I made a decision many years ago that I wouldn’t make jokes about any section of the population that I wouldn’t also make in front of that same section of the population. So when I’m with my male buddies, we do make jokes about women, but as I say, I only make jokes that I’d also make in front of women and which I hope they’d also find amusing. I also make jokes about guys, and I expect women to make jokes about guys too, but there are guy jokes that I have heard from women which I also don’t approve of. I think it’s perfectly possible to make fun of everyone, but just try to keep in mind what you might feel like if you were the butt of the joke. If you feel that the person telling the joke doesn’t have an undercurrent of nastiness then it’s all acceptable. Part of all this is knowing the people telling the joke and whether you trust that they don’t have an inherent anti-whatever streak in them. Part of the problem with being in the public eye is that it goes out to a lot of people and it does have more impact that something said between good friends who all know each other well.
There’s the Chuck we all know and love.
If the new podcast episode is as good as this comment thread I am going to be a happy dude driving home.
It doesn’t really matter who the other host is, we only listen for chucks great wisdom. Matt is quite monotone and boring though, maybe someone with a little personality would be better for discussion on the show.