The Pope, the leader of a Church with over 1Billion followers, is reported to have said that there are limits to freedom of expression. He states that
"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit."
On an individual level I agree with this up to a point, it would certainly be unfair to deliberately insult someone's faith in an aggressive manner. And certainly penalising someone for what they believe or inciting others towards vicious attacks (verbal or otherwise) based on those beliefs is frankly not sporting.
There are plenty of things that we believe (e.g. I believe I'm not bad at dancing ... I secretly suspect this is not the case) that others may find silly. Common decency demands that we play nice otherwise things descend into a free-for-all where everyone is exposed as silly and upset at others for pointing that out.
However, to quote Brian Cox (scientist and ex Pop Star):
"The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the
right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct
statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an
opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even
made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!"
I agree completely with that quote but given what I said above it's probably sensible to temper things with something like the golden rule.
However, what the Pope got wrong is in the underlying assumption that faiths as a whole are in some way beyond criticism and ridicule. I personally prefer to use the word 'faith' for an individual's belief and 'religion' for the collection of ideas, rules, and dogma. I don't believe the Pope was making that distinction.
While individuals may have 'silly' beliefs, what religions hold true can be, as we've seen, downright dangerous. And this is where Brain Cox view is particularly pertinent. While most of us will keep our beliefs to ourselves, the point at which those beliefs break the golden rule is where the line is drawn.
The Pope's example of this scenario is (from the BBC article) the following:
" 'If my good friend Doctor Gasparri [who organises the Pope's trips]
speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched,' he said,
throwing a pretend punch at the doctor, who was standing beside him. "
No.
Definitely not.
You're advocating violence against someone for the words they use. It's a VERY short step from there to saying that insulting a religious figure should result in the kind of extreme violence seen recently.
First of all the scenarios are entirely different. As far as I am aware the Pope's mother has led a blameless life and would not be deserving of any criticism. So the correct response to anyone saying anything bad about her is to ignore or even ridicule them for the unsupportable comments.
You don't go and beat them up.
Someone verbally attacking the Pope for his views (which is essentially what I am doing) should NOT be physically attacked. I'm attempting to give a reasoned argument. I believe I am supporting this with logical points. Feel free to point out any errors.
Someone verbally attacking, and even attacking the Catholic church and religion, based on taking apart aspects of dogma which are logically ridiculous should be completely free to do so. There are many people who would see that as provocative and insulting. That is their opinion and they are welcome to defend their views verbally also.
Ultimately any consensus should be reached on valid, logical, and supportable (with evidence) arguments. No violence is required for any of that.
And in none of this does any one person or groups beliefs get special treatment. You cannot derive a superior or protected position in an argument just because *you* believe that should be the case.
So the correct response to someone criticising your religion is to ignore them, possibly even ridicule them in a clever and humourous way. That generally wins more arguments than beating someone up. Generally people like clever comebacks and will side with someone being attacked and defending themselves with style.
Resorting to any kind of violence (are you listening to this your Pope-ness) generally loses the argument quite rapidly. For example, I read that Charlie Hebdo had a circulation of only 60,000 before the attacks and was viewed by many as racists and marginal. They supposedly printed 6,000,000 copies of the latest run and sold out at that.
This is probably not a victory for reason however you look at it, just an escalation of one group metaphorically punching another for saying something bad about their equally metaphorical Mother.
Given the Pope's stupid comments above it's clear that being the leader of over a billion followers does not in any way make you wise.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, 19 January 2015
Thursday, 6 May 2010
"Christian Cop arrests Gay Protestor for anti-Church comments"
I'm paraphrasing this headline: "Gay Cop arrests Preacher for Antigay (sic) Comments". The story was carried in a few places, e.g. Telegraph, and many pro-Christian and pro-Gay sites. My version of the headline looks a little odd and out of place, and would either make people do a double-take or get quite annoyed.
The balance of feeling now is that gay is fine, it's been incorporated into 'normal', and persecution based on sexuality is fading fast. All good. It's also been shown that religious fundamentalism is seen as just that, an extreme, containing views that the majority of the faithful would not really hold.
So we would, rightly, be quite upset and angry if someone used their faith/belief as bias to persecute someone. Strangely though, it's fine when we do exectly the same but just under a different banner, that of gay-rights. From the reports on this story it seems that the preacher concerned stated opinion, quoted scripture, and was engaged in a debate. He wasn't hurling abused or threatening or "inciting hatred". In my opinion his views are wrong and I agree that, to me they are "offensive" in the sense that I'm gay/lesbian so he's, in a very minor way, insulting me for my sexuality. But it's his right to hold that view, in doing so he's not harming anyone (except maybe himself).
My (vague) understanding of the bible is that same-sex relationships are pretty much painted as a bad thing, you could argue this is devine proclamation or simply practical advice from the time, nevertheless that's what it states. Why persecute someone for stating something that is historical fact?
Seriously, there are lots of opinions that people hold that I could take offense at, and vice versa. You can use the law to force people to comply with what you believe - we really don't want to go down the 1984 route of having the thought police. This arrest was a bad thing, it shows that we've replaced anti-gay bullies with pro-gay ones, is this progress?
The balance of feeling now is that gay is fine, it's been incorporated into 'normal', and persecution based on sexuality is fading fast. All good. It's also been shown that religious fundamentalism is seen as just that, an extreme, containing views that the majority of the faithful would not really hold.
So we would, rightly, be quite upset and angry if someone used their faith/belief as bias to persecute someone. Strangely though, it's fine when we do exectly the same but just under a different banner, that of gay-rights. From the reports on this story it seems that the preacher concerned stated opinion, quoted scripture, and was engaged in a debate. He wasn't hurling abused or threatening or "inciting hatred". In my opinion his views are wrong and I agree that, to me they are "offensive" in the sense that I'm gay/lesbian so he's, in a very minor way, insulting me for my sexuality. But it's his right to hold that view, in doing so he's not harming anyone (except maybe himself).
My (vague) understanding of the bible is that same-sex relationships are pretty much painted as a bad thing, you could argue this is devine proclamation or simply practical advice from the time, nevertheless that's what it states. Why persecute someone for stating something that is historical fact?
Seriously, there are lots of opinions that people hold that I could take offense at, and vice versa. You can use the law to force people to comply with what you believe - we really don't want to go down the 1984 route of having the thought police. This arrest was a bad thing, it shows that we've replaced anti-gay bullies with pro-gay ones, is this progress?
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
"British People"
This may be a little rambling as I don't seem to be able to get the ideas about this in a coherent form at the moment, needs more thinking about.
Anyway, I was listening to radio 4 this morning and a few things caught my attention, one was the criticism of an idea by the Lib Dems (I think) to have asylum seekers doing work, presumably while they wait for a decision on their case. The interviewee was against this but it made sense to me; why have people hanging around doing nothing when, for their sake and ours, they could be doing something useful with their time.
The other thing I heard was some rambling from UKIP about wanting to take us out of the EU and to limit immigration and concentrate resources on the "British People". So I started to wonder what "British People" meant? Who is "British"? Given our cultural, social, racial, and genetic mix, the only real common thing is geography, though the likes of the BNP would have you believe otherwise.
Which got me thinking some more; there are many people in this country who would vehemently claim to be "British" and yet live off the state, probably don't have much claim to any (spurious) genetic ancestry, and bemoan the fact that we're being 'flooded' with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. On the flipside there are people that want to come to this country and work hard, not live off the state, and generally contribute society in this country.
So I wonder whether we should stop thinking about nationality strictly in terms of location, surely that means you can adopt a quite lazy attitude to being British; "I'm British therefore I deserve ...". If instead being British, or any nationality, it about contributing to the society as a whole then that mind-set leads to a much more positive and inclusive definition of what it means to be and to belong.
That probably didn't make sense at all!
Anyway, I was listening to radio 4 this morning and a few things caught my attention, one was the criticism of an idea by the Lib Dems (I think) to have asylum seekers doing work, presumably while they wait for a decision on their case. The interviewee was against this but it made sense to me; why have people hanging around doing nothing when, for their sake and ours, they could be doing something useful with their time.
The other thing I heard was some rambling from UKIP about wanting to take us out of the EU and to limit immigration and concentrate resources on the "British People". So I started to wonder what "British People" meant? Who is "British"? Given our cultural, social, racial, and genetic mix, the only real common thing is geography, though the likes of the BNP would have you believe otherwise.
Which got me thinking some more; there are many people in this country who would vehemently claim to be "British" and yet live off the state, probably don't have much claim to any (spurious) genetic ancestry, and bemoan the fact that we're being 'flooded' with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. On the flipside there are people that want to come to this country and work hard, not live off the state, and generally contribute society in this country.
So I wonder whether we should stop thinking about nationality strictly in terms of location, surely that means you can adopt a quite lazy attitude to being British; "I'm British therefore I deserve ...". If instead being British, or any nationality, it about contributing to the society as a whole then that mind-set leads to a much more positive and inclusive definition of what it means to be and to belong.
That probably didn't make sense at all!
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Can no-one see the irony here?
There has been a large amount of news coverage of the recent elections (local and European). One angle is the mess the current government is in but they may have been relieved that the other story seems to have diverted some attention away from them; the election of two BNP Euro MPs.
Things took a decidedly more violent turn when Nick Griffin tried to make a speech outside parliament and got pelted with eggs. I don't know what it is with eggs as the assault weapon of choice but analysis of that will have to wait for another post.
What I found interesting is that I guess most people saw this as a justified attack and felt that he deserved it. Other suggestions about the election of the BNP being undemocratic and that they got through on a fluke (because the voter turn-out was so low) have also been discussed at length.
The truth is though that, to the best of my knowledge he, and his party, did nothing illegal or underhand to get elected. They presented their policies and opinions and this was sufficient to get them, according to the BBC article linked above, 943,598 voters. You could argue that they may have lied, misled, or hidden facts about their party and what they really stood for from these people, but frankly all the parties do that so it's hardly a charge you could level at them with impunity!
So the response for someone who was fairly elected but who clearly has views that the vast majority finds offensive, is to assault him? How is that just? Should we treat anyone with equally unsavoury views in the same way? Who gets to decide what views are right and wrong? Mob rule?
This is meant to be a democracy and we should have the freedom to hold whatever views and opinions we like. Even if these are not what the majority would agree with. Everyone should have the right to present those views, and equally everyone else can respond or ignore them. That is the price of a free and open society, you really have to support everyone's rights, not just the people to agree with.
If you are going to start assaulting people because of their views or trying to censor them then who says that same won't be done to you when your opinion is in the minority?
Things took a decidedly more violent turn when Nick Griffin tried to make a speech outside parliament and got pelted with eggs. I don't know what it is with eggs as the assault weapon of choice but analysis of that will have to wait for another post.
What I found interesting is that I guess most people saw this as a justified attack and felt that he deserved it. Other suggestions about the election of the BNP being undemocratic and that they got through on a fluke (because the voter turn-out was so low) have also been discussed at length.
The truth is though that, to the best of my knowledge he, and his party, did nothing illegal or underhand to get elected. They presented their policies and opinions and this was sufficient to get them, according to the BBC article linked above, 943,598 voters. You could argue that they may have lied, misled, or hidden facts about their party and what they really stood for from these people, but frankly all the parties do that so it's hardly a charge you could level at them with impunity!
So the response for someone who was fairly elected but who clearly has views that the vast majority finds offensive, is to assault him? How is that just? Should we treat anyone with equally unsavoury views in the same way? Who gets to decide what views are right and wrong? Mob rule?
This is meant to be a democracy and we should have the freedom to hold whatever views and opinions we like. Even if these are not what the majority would agree with. Everyone should have the right to present those views, and equally everyone else can respond or ignore them. That is the price of a free and open society, you really have to support everyone's rights, not just the people to agree with.
If you are going to start assaulting people because of their views or trying to censor them then who says that same won't be done to you when your opinion is in the minority?
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Ding dong, the witch is ...
... gone!
Yes, it finally happened, the one minister who I really wanted to see go is going to "step down" after the elections on Thursday, that's right, Jacqui Smith has left the building, gone, vamoosed, out-of-here, goodbye, seeya, so long, etc!
As regular readers of this blog will know I've not been a particular fan of Ms Smith and have grown to dislike her intensely due to the legislation and strategy she has been responsible for. I guess it would be too much to hope that her successor would reverse the mistakes already made but it would be good if she/he didn't make things worse!
Bet the CAAN are having a little party in celebration at Ms Smith's departure as well!
Yes, it finally happened, the one minister who I really wanted to see go is going to "step down" after the elections on Thursday, that's right, Jacqui Smith has left the building, gone, vamoosed, out-of-here, goodbye, seeya, so long, etc!
As regular readers of this blog will know I've not been a particular fan of Ms Smith and have grown to dislike her intensely due to the legislation and strategy she has been responsible for. I guess it would be too much to hope that her successor would reverse the mistakes already made but it would be good if she/he didn't make things worse!
Bet the CAAN are having a little party in celebration at Ms Smith's departure as well!
Friday, 22 May 2009
Suicidal MPs
Driving in this morning I couldn't believe what I heard: an MP involved in the expenses scandal has suggested that the pressure is so great a suicide is feared.
First of you have to worry that MPs aren't bright enough to fiddle expenses without getting caught - I agree that they shouldn't do it, it's totally wrong, but I'd feel somewhat safer if they were smart enough to get away with it: intelligent scoundrels seem more acceptable that incompetant money-grabbing buffoons.
Secondly, doesn't anyone either a) think before opening their mouths, or b) at least have some decent PR people in place to vet what is about to be said.
So MPs might be feeling a bit under pressure, did it not occur to anyone that there are numerous voters who are in a complete financial mess through no fault of their own (and possibly *because* of the very MPs that were making ridiculous expense claims) who have a slightly more justified reason for feeling suicidal?!
People are losing their savings, pensions, homes, jobs because of the mess we're in!
At the moment MPs from all sides look like they are greedy, uncaring and incompetant. Roll on the next election, sooner the better!
First of you have to worry that MPs aren't bright enough to fiddle expenses without getting caught - I agree that they shouldn't do it, it's totally wrong, but I'd feel somewhat safer if they were smart enough to get away with it: intelligent scoundrels seem more acceptable that incompetant money-grabbing buffoons.
Secondly, doesn't anyone either a) think before opening their mouths, or b) at least have some decent PR people in place to vet what is about to be said.
So MPs might be feeling a bit under pressure, did it not occur to anyone that there are numerous voters who are in a complete financial mess through no fault of their own (and possibly *because* of the very MPs that were making ridiculous expense claims) who have a slightly more justified reason for feeling suicidal?!
People are losing their savings, pensions, homes, jobs because of the mess we're in!
At the moment MPs from all sides look like they are greedy, uncaring and incompetant. Roll on the next election, sooner the better!
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Bring back Kenny Everett!
I made a chance remark about knowing lots of people who's name begins with K - there was a whole column of them on my messenger list - and Kate mentioned "Kaptain Kremen".
I had know idea who that was so had a quick google and it turned up Kenny Everett!
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4948/kenny.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8hkOKRgoOM
For those who don't really know what I'm taking about, have a look at the Kenny Everett page on Wikipedia.
I don't think I appreciated him when I was young, in fact I've only just realised the significance of the character "Miss Cupid Stunt" (D'OH! how thick am I!), but now I think he was probably one of the funniest guys ever and just had something about him that was so alive!
That is what we need now. We don't need crusty politicians or stupid bankers we need someone anarchic, someone with more energy than can be contained within one body. We don't need politically correct and sanatised comedy, we need to someone to just go wild. We've had enough of the 'grey' people!
So, this weekend, just say "Fuck it" and have some fun!
(yes, this is the wine talking but FFS people, think of all the fab people that have gone before, they are probably rotating in their eternal resting places with the state the world is in with all the nay-sayers and fucking stupid rules and restrictions on our liberty!)
For goodness sake we need a change and, from a political point of view, lets get rid of boring Brown and Wacky Jaqui for a start along with the rest of the grey suits! Can we have Ben Elton back as well please, Spitting Image, and all the other satire. The world is desperately crying out to have the piss taken out of it, we've become too boring and too grey!
I had know idea who that was so had a quick google and it turned up Kenny Everett!
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4948/kenny.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8hkOKRgoOM
For those who don't really know what I'm taking about, have a look at the Kenny Everett page on Wikipedia.
I don't think I appreciated him when I was young, in fact I've only just realised the significance of the character "Miss Cupid Stunt" (D'OH! how thick am I!), but now I think he was probably one of the funniest guys ever and just had something about him that was so alive!
That is what we need now. We don't need crusty politicians or stupid bankers we need someone anarchic, someone with more energy than can be contained within one body. We don't need politically correct and sanatised comedy, we need to someone to just go wild. We've had enough of the 'grey' people!
So, this weekend, just say "Fuck it" and have some fun!
(yes, this is the wine talking but FFS people, think of all the fab people that have gone before, they are probably rotating in their eternal resting places with the state the world is in with all the nay-sayers and fucking stupid rules and restrictions on our liberty!)
For goodness sake we need a change and, from a political point of view, lets get rid of boring Brown and Wacky Jaqui for a start along with the rest of the grey suits! Can we have Ben Elton back as well please, Spitting Image, and all the other satire. The world is desperately crying out to have the piss taken out of it, we've become too boring and too grey!
Thursday, 27 November 2008
I think I CAAN
Well actually I never have, probably never will do and really it's not my thing! If you don't know that CAAN stands for Consenting Adults Action Network then you are probably a little confused at this point!
As well as Wacky Jacqui's legislation concerning prostitution, which I've already mentioned here, there is some more idiocy that I guess she at least is over-seeing now even if she didn't concieve it in the first place (not sure about the exact history).
Essentially from 26th January 2009 (as The Register reported) it will become illegal to "possess material that is both pornographic and extreme". You can read the full details of the bill here, having just had a more detailed look at this I'm intrigued by:
"(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery)."
I wonder why they felt it necassary to be so inclusive/specific? Maybe it's just thorough, or an attempt to avoid calls of discrimination (though I would pretty much think that any transexual would accept that "genitalia" covers them both pre and post-op). Or maybe there is some specific set of images that they felt should be included in the legislation and concerned GRS. If that is the case then that section seems pretty much like discrimination, victimisation, or at the very least a little too targetted.
I have no interest at all in extreme porn, or really any variety at the moment but I see no reason why other adults can't enjoy looking at the things that do it for them no matter what, assuming of course that in capturing the pictures they aren't doing anything illegal.
And that's the bizarre thing: with this legislation you can still do lots of pretty unpleasant things (or simulate them at least) but you can't take a picture of it. For example there are, apparently, people into the vampire/goth kind of thing which pretty much involves lots of fake blood and other tortuous things - they can still do all this but a picture of it would mean then would break the law, even if it was just part of a private collection and not published.
This seems like pretty weasely legislation; if you don't agree with extreme sexual acts then at least come out and say that and have an honest and open debate. Don't try and stigmatise people and effectively threaten them into not being so 'perverted'.
And, even worse, don't try and propogate stereotypes which some people will not be able to live up to, it's not governments role to dictate how our relationships and sex lives should be and certainly not when this is based on some archaic notion that there is a preferred and 'moral' ideal.
As well as Wacky Jacqui's legislation concerning prostitution, which I've already mentioned here, there is some more idiocy that I guess she at least is over-seeing now even if she didn't concieve it in the first place (not sure about the exact history).
Essentially from 26th January 2009 (as The Register reported) it will become illegal to "possess material that is both pornographic and extreme". You can read the full details of the bill here, having just had a more detailed look at this I'm intrigued by:
"(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery)."
I wonder why they felt it necassary to be so inclusive/specific? Maybe it's just thorough, or an attempt to avoid calls of discrimination (though I would pretty much think that any transexual would accept that "genitalia" covers them both pre and post-op). Or maybe there is some specific set of images that they felt should be included in the legislation and concerned GRS. If that is the case then that section seems pretty much like discrimination, victimisation, or at the very least a little too targetted.
I have no interest at all in extreme porn, or really any variety at the moment but I see no reason why other adults can't enjoy looking at the things that do it for them no matter what, assuming of course that in capturing the pictures they aren't doing anything illegal.
And that's the bizarre thing: with this legislation you can still do lots of pretty unpleasant things (or simulate them at least) but you can't take a picture of it. For example there are, apparently, people into the vampire/goth kind of thing which pretty much involves lots of fake blood and other tortuous things - they can still do all this but a picture of it would mean then would break the law, even if it was just part of a private collection and not published.
This seems like pretty weasely legislation; if you don't agree with extreme sexual acts then at least come out and say that and have an honest and open debate. Don't try and stigmatise people and effectively threaten them into not being so 'perverted'.
And, even worse, don't try and propogate stereotypes which some people will not be able to live up to, it's not governments role to dictate how our relationships and sex lives should be and certainly not when this is based on some archaic notion that there is a preferred and 'moral' ideal.
Friday, 21 November 2008
'Wacky' Jacqui is at it again
I must credit The Register with coming up with her title but I believe it is a fitting description of Jacqui (looks an odd way to spell that name) Smith our current home secretary. For a start she is responsible for the madness over the ID scheme and related propoganda as well as many other privacy-invading measures (okay I could have a biased view given the coverage of her in the aforementioned publication).
Her latest plan is supposedly an attempt to help women (and presumably some men in similar circumstances) who are pressured and exploited in the sex trade. From the coverage so far, e.g. this BBC article "Prostitute users face clampdown", it seems that that the proposals are actually going to impact 'legal' prostitution but probably have little affect on what the government claims to be targetting, helping women controlled by pimps.
Belle De Jour, the famous (maybe infamous) author of Secret Diary of a Call Girl has, given her experience, something to say about all of this. I'm sure there has been plenty of discussion and debate about it all as well - I caught some of an interview with Jacqui Smith on Radio 4 but I've so far missed question time and similar programmes.
There is just something about this that annoys me. I don't really have any right to comment as such, I have absolutely no experience or knowledge about this area of life; to the best of my knowledge I have only ever seen one person in my entire life who might have been a prostitute, I don't know anyone who knows anyone, was one or employed their services. I have led a sheltered life!
But it has always seemed to me, inexperienced (in alot of things) though I may be, that the most sensible thing to do would be to legalise prostitution and bring it out in the open for all the obvious reasons (regulation, safety, taxation). It is, as they say, just sex, why should this be any different to other areas of life? We can talk about love and relationships and everything else but sex is really seen as such a taboo.
Taking an adult approach to something that is clearly being viewed as a problem would show great leadership and illustrate that we can and should be open about sex. Instead this is just making things worse and stigmatising those who provide or use such services, but worse than that it makes everything related to sex feel that much more taboo.
Her latest plan is supposedly an attempt to help women (and presumably some men in similar circumstances) who are pressured and exploited in the sex trade. From the coverage so far, e.g. this BBC article "Prostitute users face clampdown", it seems that that the proposals are actually going to impact 'legal' prostitution but probably have little affect on what the government claims to be targetting, helping women controlled by pimps.
Belle De Jour, the famous (maybe infamous) author of Secret Diary of a Call Girl has, given her experience, something to say about all of this. I'm sure there has been plenty of discussion and debate about it all as well - I caught some of an interview with Jacqui Smith on Radio 4 but I've so far missed question time and similar programmes.
There is just something about this that annoys me. I don't really have any right to comment as such, I have absolutely no experience or knowledge about this area of life; to the best of my knowledge I have only ever seen one person in my entire life who might have been a prostitute, I don't know anyone who knows anyone, was one or employed their services. I have led a sheltered life!
But it has always seemed to me, inexperienced (in alot of things) though I may be, that the most sensible thing to do would be to legalise prostitution and bring it out in the open for all the obvious reasons (regulation, safety, taxation). It is, as they say, just sex, why should this be any different to other areas of life? We can talk about love and relationships and everything else but sex is really seen as such a taboo.
Taking an adult approach to something that is clearly being viewed as a problem would show great leadership and illustrate that we can and should be open about sex. Instead this is just making things worse and stigmatising those who provide or use such services, but worse than that it makes everything related to sex feel that much more taboo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
