Bigotry, Gay Marriage, Michael Sam & Tony Dungy

[flere-imsaho]

In an effort to clean up the NFL thread, I thought I'd try to split off the conversation about Michael Sam & Tony Dungy (and so, so much more...) to a new thread. Which is this one. The one you're reading, you poor soul.

For reference, the discussion started here and as of this writing is on page 42 of that thread.

Have at it, folks!

Oh, and as a bonus I've included a poll, because I believe people like those things.

[Suburban Rhythm]

If we allow gay marriage, next thing people will want to marry trouts!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: For flere-imsaho, I am not saying these challenge are in any way as bad of threats of violence and family alienation that being homosexual can have in some places, with some people. I'm just answering your question. Yes, some people do actively campaign to limit religious expression.

Fine. Next, I would like you to realize that if there's such a serious difference in outcomes, and thus no equivalence, bringing it up is essentially not relevant to the discussion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Fine. Next, I would like you to realize that if there's such a serious difference in outcomes, and thus no equivalence, bringing it up is essentially not relevant to the discussion.

I didn't bring it up.

But maybe you're right and I should check with you before I express any thoughts here.

[NobodyHere]

Does this whole debate remind anyone of the "Death Camp of Tolerance" South Park episode?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

You want me to write a book report with sources supporting my opinion that there are people who think that those who oppose gay marriage are the scum of the earth and worse than criminals?

Honestly, just a few examples would do. Otherwise you're just being handwavy. But yeah, it's up to you to decide if you want people to take you seriously or not.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

But maybe you're right and I should check with you before I express any thoughts here.

Me or common sense.

[molson]

I shared a personal anecdote about own my experiences and perceptions and peer groups regarding tolerance for religion and prayer. It was in response to a point Chief Rum and a few others were making about tolerance of religious beliefs. And his and my broader point beyond that was I thought people are too quick to throw out terms like bigot and hypocrite. I never claimed that I had it worse than somebody who was attacked because of the sexuality or anything like that. (I literally described it as being " a little awkward")

Your response was to mock me for things I didn't say, and to generally be pretty hostile. There were other hostile responses too. People get irrationally pissed and can't even read clearly when you state anything other than the "correct" black and white view on this.

And like I said over there, I get the "not being tolerant of intolerance" thing, but I don't even think that's what I'm doing. Whether it be someone who did something racially intolerant, Joe Paterno with the Sandusky thing, someone who opposes gay marriage, or a real anti-religion bigot (and I know people really angry when anyone even acknowledge the existence of those!), I've always been interesting in trying to understand where those feelings come from. I don't think Dungy is being hypocritical at all, I think if you understand Christianity, you understand the distinctions. With Paterno, I certainly didn't condone him, but I think I pissed people off in that thread for basically expressing an understanding about how a product of a prior generation can botch a situation like that. Maybe I try to do this because I had a couple of grandparents who were truly intolerant about a lot of things, and I tried to reconcile that with the admiration I had for them for other good things they did.

Ultimately they're just opinions, that's all we do here. You don't have to agree with them, but it makes things smoother and easier and more productive if you try to understand them or at least respect them. (Edit: The other option is of course to just label me as "intolerant", and then you don't have to respect or tolerate my opinions at all!)

[stevew]

Tell me more about these girls...

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Honestly, just a few examples would do. Otherwise you're just being handwavy. But yeah, it's up to you to decide if you want people to take you seriously or not.

Maybe not what you're looking for but the Southern Poverty Law Center says that being anti-gay marriage now qualifies you as a hate group.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Gimme a break.

Do you really think campaigning to prevent expression of your beliefs is the same as denying people the right to marry, adopt, employment, access to healthcare, etc...?

To each side these issues represent a great personal injustice. So, I would say both are similar in that they motivate an electoral base like few other issues. They are also massive money makers for political candidates, talk show hosts and swag.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by molson

I wouldn't admit to most of my peer group that I find value in religion and prayer. It'd be a little awkward after they've told me so often how stupid religion is and how people who find value in it are brain-dead lemmings and such. .

I agree with this, it is very popular to be anti-god. IMO, most who rant against god are silly and sophomoric.

Man is selfish and lazy. Man will do/create whatever is necessary to fulfill both desires. Be that political, religious or economic systems. All are equally abstract, corruptible and experienced fundamentally different on micro and maco levels.

To pick one, albeit massive, man made institution and put it above all others as uniquely evil is ignorant.

Rant done. This summer is dragging, back to tiki drinks.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I agree with this, it is very popular to be anti-god.

It's surprising to see this on a board devoted to sports in general and football in specific because of the preponderance of athletes invoking "God" when talking about their success (and a great many other things) is quite widespread.

Whereas, where do we see a concentration of "anti-god" in popular culture?

Again, there is no equivalence. Unless you want to show me some equivalence.

And anyway, despite declines, God and all things godly remains quite strong amongst Americans themselves: Poll: Americans' Belief in God Is Strong--But Declining | CNS News

I am, however, open to other facts.

[korme]

CAN WE PLEASE NOT TALK ABOUT HOW FUCKING RETARDED RELIGION IS

[Kodos]

How can the answers be hidden in this poll? HOW?!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

But is anyone with these biases activly campaigning to not give equal rights to Catholics, Jews, etc...

Lathum, not to ignore the rest of your comment in the other thread, but just to point out, you went forward on a tangent there I did not originally address, at least not in our direct discussion, and that wasn't relevant to my original statement.

The relevant part of my quote...

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I see hate on both sides of this debate. Hate for gays and lesbians. And hate for religious people. It's sad, but it is what it is.

I never stated anyone was actively trying to limit the civil rights of the religious right. I was just noting that the tenor of the discussion of this debate, both here and in the media and in the world in general, is rife with hate and prejudice, and that it runs towards both sides, not just hatemongering towards the homosexual community.

[flere-imsaho]

When you say something like "I see hate on both sides of this debate", you introduce a Fallacy of False Equivalence. Unless you then subsequently address the false equivalence you've introduced you are, de facto arguing for that equivalence.

And, you are then wrong.

[molson]

Are you saying that intolerance towards religion just doesn't exist? You can go to say, /r/atheist, to see examples of actual hatred and intolerance towards religion. Like I said, nobody here goes close to that far, at least outwardly. But people do seem to get offended when you even talk about this concept.

One of my best friends in Idaho rants against religion all the time. I still decided to be friends with her because she adopted a bunch of old dogs. I find adopting old dogs a to be a greater sign of good character than being a little ignorant and intolerant about religion is an automatic sign of bad character. Tolerance is a skill, none of us are perfectly tolerant about everything.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's surprising to see this on a board devoted to sports in general and football in specific because of the preponderance of athletes invoking "God" when talking about their success (and a great many other things) is quite widespread.

Whereas, where do we see a concentration of "anti-god" in popular culture?

Again, there is no equivalence. Unless you want to show me some equivalence.

And anyway, despite declines, God and all things godly remains quite strong amongst Americans themselves: Poll: Americans' Belief in God Is Strong--But Declining | CNS News

I am, however, open to other facts.

Just the stuff I have experienced recently:
Penn jillette's podcast Sunday school
Bill maher movie and show
Science guy, Dawkins debates and lectures
Rickey Gervais, Kathy griffin
South Park/ Book of Mormon

Most of it is humor, which is where I think it is currently the most prominent in pop culture

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you saying that intolerance towards religion just doesn't exist?

No, I am not saying that. I am disagreeing with the statement:

it is very popular to be anti-god

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No, I am not saying that. I am disagreeing with the statement:

Those celebrity examples pretty much highlight where you're wrong.

edit to add: As does the existence of this thread

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Just the stuff I have experienced recently:
Penn jillette's podcast Sunday school
Bill maher movie and show
Science guy, Dawkins debates and lectures
Rickey Gervais, Kathy griffin
South Park/ Book of Mormon

Most of it is humor, which is where I think it is currently the most prominent in pop culture

And this list, you feel, supports your contention that "it is very popular to be anti-god"?

With the possible exception of Ricky Gervais, South Park and Book of Mormon, none of those examples are mainstream popular culture (and classifying these three as mainstream popular culture is a stretch), and certainly not in the way sports stars are mainstream.

Plus, again:

74% of adults believe in God
72% believe in miracles
68% believe in heaven
64% believe in the survival of the soul after death

alternatively:

47% believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.


I do not find the statement "it is popular to be anti-god" to be easily supported, given a standard understanding of the word "popular".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Those celebrity examples pretty much highlight where you're wrong.

I'd like to see your definition of popular, then.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd like to see your definition of popular, then.

pop·u·lar
ˈpäpyələr/
adjective
adjective: popular

1.liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group.

As for that study you cited, there's obviously a lot of people claiming one set of beliefs & acting in an entirely different fashion. Again, that this discussion (the topic, not our sidebar to it) even exists is proof of that.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you saying that intolerance towards religion just doesn't exist?

It does. But many religious folks don't have much tolerance for people that disagree with them. Any time someone disagrees with them, they try to paint that person as intolerant of religion.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you saying that intolerance towards religion just doesn't exist? You can go to say, /r/atheist, to see examples of actual hatred and intolerance towards religion. Like I said, nobody here goes close to that far, at least outwardly. But people do seem to get offended when you even talk about this concept.

One of my best friends in Idaho rants against religion all the time. I still decided to be friends with her because she adopted a bunch of old dogs. I find adopting old dogs a to be a greater sign of good character than being a little ignorant and intolerant about religion is an automatic sign of bad character. Tolerance is a skill, none of us are perfectly tolerant about everything.

But is she saying she doesn't believe it/buy into it, or that it should outright be done away with?

LGBT rallies do not, to my knowledge, ask that Christianity be done away with. But anti- gay marriage rallies seek to do just that. Eliminate the ability for gays to marry.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It does. But many religious folks don't have much tolerance for people that disagree with them. Any time someone disagrees with them, they try to paint that person as intolerant of religion.

A lot of people are like that, definitely. So you can see the cycle that generates. If you value religion or prayer or whatever, then some people get really upset if you claim people are intolerant towards those values, because so many religious people definitely do play those same claims as a card to justify their own intolerance. So it gets to be a tangled mess. It's easier to just not bring up, which is certainly my policy in real life.

Religion is extremely unpopular with my peers. I know the national demographic stats, I think it's harder to quantify for young, urban, educated progressives outside of the south. So I can only emphasize this is only my opinion and experience. I'm surprised that whole concept is so challenged, and wonder if other people have different experiences. How many of your friends your age go to church and talk about god? I went to a Lutheran summer camp and kept a lot of those friends, so I do know a few, but outside of that group, it's almost none. And I don't have a single friend or acquaintance that openly opposes gay marriage. (Edit: though I do have a friend in Colorado who says he'd never move to Idaho because of the politics of the state.....so I do have fun showing him my version of Boise when he visits. And I wouldn't admit it to him, but I find his whole position ignorant and intolerant. I don't admit how I feel because, well, you can see the response here when you go there.)

I don't think the people that bash religion to me are automatically bad at heart or anything. In fact, I do think most of my friends here, if I got real over some beers or something, and I was like, "hey, I pray, I find strength in my faith, it's just something I connect with, it makes feel stronger, but don't worry, I keep it to myself, I won't talk about it anymore, and I don't even go to church and I certainly don't dislike gay people, I think gay marriage is awesome", I'm sure they'd be cool, but I think they'd watch what they say around me, and I'd rather just drink the beer, it's not that important to me.

[nol]

Are we really going to be fudging dictionary definitions? If something's liked by a particular person or group, it's popular within that subset of people. Doesn't take much reading comprehension to see that the subset of people being discussed was society at large.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Just the stuff I have experienced recently:
Penn jillette's podcast Sunday school
Bill maher movie and show
Science guy, Dawkins debates and lectures
Rickey Gervais, Kathy griffin
South Park/ Book of Mormon

Most of it is humor, which is where I think it is currently the most prominent in pop culture

Outside of Dawkins your list goes a long way to explain why you think "most who rant against god are silly and sophomoric". It would be like me saying because the Duck Dynasty guy is very religious that...

I don't know if you think these examples are what atheism is truly about or you are just making a dumb argument. If it's the first I can give you a list of a few non-comedy based books about atheism to read. (Though Dawkins would be a good starting point)

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

And this list, you feel, supports your contention that "it is very popular to be anti-god"?

With the possible exception of Ricky Gervais, South Park and Book of Mormon, none of those examples are mainstream popular culture (and classifying these three as mainstream popular culture is a stretch), and certainly not in the way sports stars are mainstream.

Plus, again:

74% of adults believe in God
72% believe in miracles
68% believe in heaven
64% believe in the survival of the soul after death

alternatively:

47% believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.


I do not find the statement "it is popular to be anti-god" to be easily supported, given a standard understanding of the word "popular".

I'm not sure what you are asking for. A football player making one occasional statement is considered part of the culture, despite how they may actually live their lives? Yet, successful books, tv shows and movies devoted to anti god still do not approach the zeitgeist of the occasional religious?

Even something as small as the tv show "modern family", no one goes to or proclaims to be religious, except the Colombian wife who is portrayed as naive. Also, look at the way Sheldon's mom is portrayed on Big Bang. Mad Men is one big agnostic existential crisis.

I'm also not sure what you mean by your America is still religious stats. How does that relate to the notion it is popular to be anti god? Does the anti god movement need to be in the majority to considered popular? It is like saying there has never been a time where it was popular to be un American because every poll has said the majority believes in the constitution.

It seems you think this is an either/or question. I think both being religious and un religious can be popular at the same time. Much like how rap and country music can be.

[panerd]

Now onto the actual topic of the thread..

The last several months I have seen this debate over Michael Sam being framed as one side religion/the other side enlightened all over the place and while I guess I would be on the "enlightened" side on this one it's really a media driven load of horseshit.

I have been going to Mizzou games for years and the fan base of the Missouri Tigers is largely of the red state variety. However since Michael Sam is one of ours he has almost complete support of the fan base. Things are a little more divided in St. Louis with the Rams but support is still overwhelmingly in Michael Sam's favor. So it really isn't a question of what are your religious beliefs it is more of a question of is he on your favorite team or not. The gay marriage sideshow is just a media frenzy to have something to talk about during the offseason. Once Alabama or Georgia or UCLA... have an openly gay player the less of an issue it will start to be nationwide.

[BillJasper]

I don't think Dungy's current comments alone damn him. I'm sure a few teams passed on Manziel because they weren't sure what type of circus would be arriving with him. I think the media's fascination with Tim Tebow is the reason he isn't on anyone's roster. I'm sure that many front offices that had a need at DE talked about Sam and whether the potential reward outweighed the potential media circus.

What damns Dungy, is his past support for anti-gay groups and Michael Vick.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by panerd

Outside of Dawkins your list goes a long way to explain why you think "most who rant against god are silly and sophomoric". It would be like me saying because the Duck Dynasty guy is very religious that...

I don't know if you think these examples are what atheism is truly about or you are just making a dumb argument. If it's the first I can give you a list of a few non-comedy based books about atheism to read. (Though Dawkins would be a good starting point)

Oh, besides Penn these are the examples I like. I didn't mean to show this as the list of the silly.

Where it goes sophomoric is the name calling, like zombie Jesus. It's silly to me for someone to dismiss how religion helped my mom get through the death of her husband by referencing the Inquisition.

More importantly, I don't see much difference between the belief in sin and the belief in liberty, or heaven and the American dream. Yet, many that I have experienced in the anti god crowd seem to think everything in their lives is rational and scientifically proven.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Now onto the actual topic of the thread..

The last several months I have seen this debate over Michael Sam being framed as one side religion/the other side enlightened all over the place and while I guess I would be on the "enlightened" side on this one it's really a media driven load of horseshit.

I have been going to Mizzou games for years and the fan base of the Missouri Tigers is largely of the red state variety. However since Michael Sam is one of ours he has almost complete support of the fan base. Things are a little more divided in St. Louis with the Rams but support is still overwhelmingly in Michael Sam's favor. So it really isn't a question of what are your religious beliefs it is more of a question of is he on your favorite team or not. The gay marriage sideshow is just a media frenzy to have something to talk about during the offseason. Once Alabama or Georgia or UCLA... have an openly gay player the less of an issue it will start to be nationwide.

Agreed. Except I think it ties in with the previous posts. Even though Collins wasn't able to resume his career right away I think the fact that fans weren't chanting racial slurs at him anywhere calmed people down some. Because if you back to that thread, people were predicting disaster from the fans and the locker room. Which, I think, and I know this will piss people off, ties in with the mild ignorance and intolerance towards religion and red states generally. It wouldn't be that big a deal even here. There's a lot of people in my state gay marriage here of course, and within that group, definitely some real hateful bigots, but it's really not as hostile or unwelcoming a community as people imagine, I think.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

When you say something like "I see hate on both sides of this debate", you introduce a Fallacy of False Equivalence. Unless you then subsequently address the false equivalence you've introduced you are, de facto arguing for that equivalence.

And, you are then wrong.

If you perceive equivalence in my statement, that is on you, not me. You are attaching your own definitions/perspective to what I mean.

I am simply stating I see hate/prejudice towards both sides. If you want to argue that that (wrongly) elevates the "hate" for the religious side to a level that is not accurate by trying to equate it to the hate often expressed toward the homosexual community, that is your argument to make, but it is not, and never was mine.

Try to read my statement literally. I am saying I see hate on both sides. I don't go into further details about those two hates, their relative level in comparison to the other, and so forth. It's a simple fact statement, without further embellishment.

If you wish to have a discussion with me, discuss my words, not your presumptions about what I don't say.

BTW, I would say, of course, that the hate expressed toward the gay community is much more hateful and ugly than that expressed toward the strong religious community (which I describe elsewhere as a prejudice, really, not actual hate), but here on this board, the ones who are expressing more black and white, intolerant behaviors seem to me to be from the homosexual side of the debate.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It seems you think this is an either/or question.

Not really. I'm simply asking people to substantiate the assertion that "it is very popular to be anti-god".

So far the proof provided to support that assertion appears to be the existence of some B/C/D-list celebrities, a TV show, a Broadway musical and a subreddit.

I don't find that particularly convincing. Unless the definition of "very popular", or even just "popular" is quite different from the one I'm expecting.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

But is she saying she doesn't believe it/buy into it, or that it should outright be done away with?

LGBT rallies do not, to my knowledge, ask that Christianity be done away with. But anti- gay marriage rallies seek to do just that. Eliminate the ability for gays to marry.

You (or others and you) keep bringing this up. Why does prejudice to a group require that it must infringe upon that group's rights to legitamize it before we can consider it prejudice?

In my mind, prejudice is prejudice, whether it is held deeply within or actively acted upon toward others.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If you perceive equivalence in my statement, that is on you, not me. You are attaching your own definitions/perspective to what I mean.

I am simply stating I see hate/prejudice towards both sides. If you want to argue that that (wrongly) elevates the "hate" for the religious side to a level that is not accurate by trying to equate it to the hate often expressed toward the homosexual community, that is your argument to make, but it is not, and never was mine.

Try to read my statement literally. I am saying I see hate on both sides. I don't go into further details about those two hates, their relative level in comparison to the other, and so forth. It's a simple fact statement, without further embellishment.

If you wish to have a discussion with me, discuss my words, not your presumptions about what I don't say.

OK.

Bereft of additional context, the statement "I see hate/prejudice towards both sides" implies equivalence. If equivalence was not your intent, then the use of adjectives would have signaled the reader of that.

Placed within context, however, the statement implies equivalence more strongly. The context of the discussion was the level of intolerance towards gays. To respond to such assertions with a comment that intolerance exists on both sides is to offer a counter-argument, and imply strongly the presence of equivalence.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK.

Bereft of additional context, the statement "I see hate/prejudice towards both sides" implies equivalence. If equivalence was not your intent, then the use of adjectives would have signaled the reader of that.

Placed within context, however, the statement implies equivalence more strongly. The context of the discussion was the level of intolerance towards gays. To respond to such assertions with a comment that intolerance exists on both sides is to offer a counter-argument, and imply strongly the presence of equivalence.

Do you understand where my original statement was coming from? I was making a general comment more about the tenor of the discussion around this debate, not about the active hate acts going on in the world toward each side.

I pointed this out to Lathum above.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK.

Bereft of additional context, the statement "I see hate/prejudice towards both sides" implies equivalence. If equivalence was not your intent, then the use of adjectives would have signaled the reader of that.

Placed within context, however, the statement implies equivalence more strongly. The context of the discussion was the level of intolerance towards gays. To respond to such assertions with a comment that intolerance exists on both sides is to offer a counter-argument, and imply strongly the presence of equivalence.

Do you think YOU'VE ever committed a thinking error, or incorrectly attributed a thought to someone else, or had your judgment impacted by bias? You are terrific at telling everybody else how they argue wrong. Have you ever made any of these mistakes? I've never seen you concede a point or put yourself out as anything less than perfect, or acknowledge there's something you might not know everything about.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you think YOU'VE ever committed a thinking error, or incorrectly attributed a thought to someone else, or had your judgment impacted by bias? You are terrific at telling everybody else how they argue wrong. Have you ever made any of these mistakes? I've never seen you concede a point or put yourself out as anything less than perfect, or acknowledge there's something you might not know everything about.

Be careful. He'll probably throw the ole ad hominem at you.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Do you understand where my original statement was coming from? I was making a general comment more about the tenor of the discussion around this debate, not about the active hate acts going on in the world toward each side.

Here's what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I see hate on both sides of this debate. Hate for gays and lesbians. And hate for religious people. It's sad, but it is what it is.

That still implies equivalence. Do you really believe as much people hate the religious (which, per the poll, is 74% of the population) as hate gays?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Be careful. He'll probably throw the ole ad hominem at you.

Thanks for providing an example.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you think YOU'VE ever committed a thinking error, or incorrectly attributed a thought to someone else, or had your judgment impacted by bias? You are terrific at telling everybody else how they argue wrong. Have you ever made any of these mistakes? I've never seen you concede a point or put yourself out as anything less than perfect, or acknowledge there's something you might not know everything about.

I'm pretty sure I have. ISiddiqui usually proves me wrong on SCOTUS cases, and if I haven't admitted that before, I should definitely atone for that now.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Here's what you wrote:



That still implies equivalence. Do you really believe as much people hate the religious (which, per the poll, is 74% of the population) as hate gays?

The hate I see on both sides of the discussion is equivalent in my mind, yes. In this thread, in fact, I see a lot more intolerance from the anti-Dungy crowd than the religious side.

I meant my statement literally. Again, you can attach your own interpretations if you like, but that is on you, not me.

[molson]

Chief Rum, please show empirical data for your feelings regarding the tone of these threads.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by molson

Chief Rum, please show empirical data for your feelings regarding the tone of these threads.

I'm working on a spreadsheet right now!

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not really. I'm simply asking people to substantiate the assertion that "it is very popular to be anti-god".

So far the proof provided to support that assertion appears to be the existence of some B/C/D-list celebrities, a TV show, a Broadway musical and a subreddit.

I don't find that particularly convincing. Unless the definition of "very popular", or even just "popular" is quite different from the one I'm expecting.

Ug, besides some anecdotal evidence based on your experience and interpretation of popular, is there any rational based evidence you would accept?

Or, how about this: would you game of thrones is popular? If so, 7 million people watched it, so does the anti god movement need 7 million people to become popular?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by nol

Are we really going to be fudging dictionary definitions? If something's liked by a particular person or group, it's popular within that subset of people. Doesn't take much reading comprehension to see that the subset of people being discussed was society at large.

He asked about "how it was defined", so I went with the obvious.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

What damns Dungy, is his past support for anti-gay groups

Or redeems him.

Eye of the beholder, etc. etc.