Ophelia has already registered her displeasure with the anti-feminist attitude of this new video by Jaclyn Glenn, which Glenn describes as A video about Atheism+ and pussies
.
But I have to criticize it as being simply an awful example of bad argumentation. Here’s the pocket summary: Glenn sets it up as an attempt to, in a comedic way
, compare the bickering in the atheist community
to arguments about vegetarians. To do this, she acts as two vloggers: for one, she puts on a blonde wig and glasses and makes a bunch of extremist, stupid arguments and demands absolute agreement; for the other, she just plays Jaclyn Glenn, reasonable, compromising, sensitive, egalitarian defender of reason who just wants to get along. In other words, she pretends to be the rational one pleading for unity while characterizing her critics as total idiots.
Really, it’s disgraceful and stupid and dishonest. And she closes it with a pitiful …and this is my life now :'(
How sad.
But imagine for a moment that I made a video in which I tried to argue that atheism was a rational position, and I did it by arguing against myself, dressed up in dorky clothes, making cartoonish facial expressions, and saying things so stupid that Christians wouldn’t recognize them as their own views, which I then described as “Atheism vs. Retards.” Would that be considered at all effective? (Well, it would probably get me a 100,000 subscriptions, because the youtube atheist community is that bad.)
Look, if you want to be effective, you have to at least quote the real arguments of real opponents. Do not invent characters who do not exist and then place silly words in their mouths. If I’m arguing against religion, I don’t have to resort to mocking imaginary Christians — there is more than enough proudly stated idiocy in the religious community to keep me busy for years. It’s telling that when Glenn wants to argue against the divisiveness of feminists, she has to gather lots of hay and stuff it into a silly costume, and then translate them to vegetarianism, in order to try and come off looking reasonable.
Sorry, Ms Glenn. You failed. You failed miserably. To do it while wearing a “LOGIC” t-shirt that you sell in your store is deeply ironic.
This is stuff that embarrasses me as an atheist.
Also, I have to rub a little salt in the wound: her first lines are that she is an atheist “because she cares about people.” Lovely. She’s already paying lip service to Atheism+.
A good illustration of the problem:
Med school drop-out or flunk-out? Inquiring minds want to know.
Yeah, my local atheist club is all excited about booking Jaclyn for a talk. I’m torn between boycotting and thus being silent about my disapproval, and attending (including paying $10) and probably getting yelled at for being a “purity atheist” if I criticize her juvenile mischaracterizations of feminists.
Haven’t watched the video (don’t really want to, to be honest), but I wonder how much she even understands about feminism. Does she know what the word means? Or is she going by the Slympitter/MRA/PUA distorted version of the word?
@2: Well, you could go and sexually harass her…because she obviously has no problem with that, right?
Wow, that was… well that was dumb. Her videos are usually not that bad. I mean that was pretty bad. She needs some quality control or something.
@3 Tony
She says that she understands the definition of feminism but she doesn’t like what “modern feminism” has turned into.
@6: Which means she’s using the PUA definition.
All other things aside, I don’t understand being an atheist “because I care about people.” I understand being an atheist, and I understand caring about people, but the idea of there being a causal link baffles me – at least caring -> atheism… I can kind of figure out an argument toward caring about people because of atheism, but as far as I can reason it through, it requires a degree of humanism already in place to support the conclusion.
Maybe she means she’s an atheist activist because she cares about people? I’ll assume that’s the case, because that makes sense. But… if she cares about people, why is she so dismissive of the idea that things you say can hurt people? How can you care about people, but dismiss the fact that your words can actually hurt people as “looking for reasons to be offended”?
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can make me think I deserved it.”
I can’t even…. I tried, I really did. But the blond wigged straw-clown was just too stupid to listen to. And the totes reasonable opponent almost made my eyes roll out of my head.
“modern feminism”
I wonder which straw man that is.
Who is this person? This is the second time that I’ve heard of her; Christina Rad did a rebuttal of a video she made, but otherwise I have no idea who she is other than someone who puts videos on youtube.
Athywren:
I don’t get this mentality either. “Words can’t hurt people”. The fuck? Words do cause harm.
Words can indeed bring harm to others, as evidenced by how verbal bullying affects LGBTQI youth. To deny the power of words is to deny reality.
This is a rhetorical phenomenon some refer to as “Dumb and so Goddamn Crazy.” Here’s a helpful illustration by cartoonist Schmorky.
6.
doublereed ,
To (mis)quote Dawkypoo: “I’m a feminist, but …”
I still have no idea who Jaclyn Glenn is, but wow this makes me feel uncomfortably embarrassed for her. She’s got a Youtube Reply-Girl-iness about her. All I gleaned from her website’s About page is that she’s apparently hot and LOGIC and a HOT GIRL and smart and don’t forget how hot she is! She personified her own straw man argument… it’s almost impressive, I guess.
Well. that was four minutes, twenty one seconds of the great strawman massacre with a side order of almost impressively jedi-like point-missing skills.
Not only is her straw-feminist stereotype laughably ridiculous and inaccurate, it strikes me as indicative of how poor her grasp of the issues really is that she compares entirely legitimate concerns over rape culture and entrenched patriarchal misogyny to some imaginary and weirdly fundamentalist pro-cat position.
She doubtless imagines that she is being humourous or (worse still) ‘edgy’, but when you have a situation where feminists are arguing for the basic recognition of the personhood and common humanity of women on the one hand, and the MRAs, PUAs and assorted other misogynists are quite openly denying that personhood, and acting as if challenging the attitude that women are all interchangeable and disposeable ambulatory sex toys/incubators amounts to a feminist conspiracy to persecute of men on the other, then foolish and immature stunts like this not only fail to contribute at all to the discourse, but actively work to punch down the power gradient at vulnerable groups.
I wonder if she even realises that there is no shortage of people out there who would look at her video and apply her straw-feminist stereotype to anyone who argues for the basic bodily autonomy of women to control their reproductive capacity, or who would even try to claim that there is no such thing as rape at all; just the compulsive need women supposedly have to lie about sex. That is the kind of person she is aligning herself with, whether she is socially aware enough to realise it or not.
When that finally dawns on her (if it ever does) I wonder if she will cringe when she remembers incidents like this? Or will she be struck by a conveniently selective form of amnesia that the unforgivingly long memory of the internet is unlkely to accommodate?
The worst part is that she is by no means a stupid or poorly educated person – this is a blindspot that she is stubbornly clinging to no matter how much collateral damage she causes in the process, and that is harder to forgive than simple stupidity or honest ignorance.
Athywren
I would assume the progression goes I care about people -> religion hurts people -> I’m opposed to religion -> I’m an atheist. I can’t say that this is my own thought process, I’ve always been an atheist, but that would be a viable causal connection.
Oh, I know how atheists answer this one. Ahem.
[Pushes glasses back up on nose.] This is a non sequitur. Merriam-Webster defines “atheist” as the following:
athe·ist (noun) \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist
: one who believes that there is no deity
There is nothing in that to indicate a causal relationship, or indeed any relationship, with ‘caring about people’.
Dalillama:
I can see that progression (doesn’t apply to me though). Thing is, for some atheists, the starting point “I care about people” is incredibly vague and directly contradicted by “waaaah, I don’t want harassment policies!” or “I’m going to keep using the word ‘c$nt’ whether you like it or not!”
@Dalillama, 17
But that doesn’t follow… religion hurts people, yeah, so you oppose religion, sure, but that doesn’t mean you should therefore not believe in any gods. Religion is harmful, so oppose religion, absolutely, but religion and gods are only related insofar as religions claim to speak for those gods.
Anthony K:
We’ve lost you to the dictionary atheists.
::sniff sniff::
Athywren:
You may be looking at it too logically.
AHEGM!
http://butthug.com/post/21056500922/my-famous-dumb-and-so-goddamn-crazy-strip-now-in
counter straw argument.
scene opens a group of animal rights activists are discussing a recent discovery that kittens are being used by a local business to test their new wood chipper (why waste valuable wood before the thing works).
BraveHERO enters.
BraveHERO: Hi everybody whatcha talking about? Cats? CATS!? pfft you should all shut up about cats already. Thats all you ever talk about.
Group member 1: If you don’t want to talk about about this issue you don’t have to. Feel free to come back when we are not discussing cats we do cover other issues here.
BraveHERO: Why are you trying to silence me? Also why aren’t you talking about the plight of kangaroos!? Don’t you know that cats kill birds? Ugh why do you care about this shit!
etcetera.
@Tony, 22
Is it a full moon? I… may have been bitten by a Werevulcan recently…
Still bad reasoning, though. *kicks the dirt sulkily*
Tony, your claim is illogical. I am not lost; the GPS in my phone places me within 17 metres of where on earth’s surface I perceive myself to be.
Incidentally, research suggests the mucous hindering your breathing my be the result of any of several infections, some of which are treatable by a medical professional.
Youtube recced her vids because I watch the con sessions skepticon etc. Wasn’t familiar with her works so I tuned in to one. After one, I tried another but couldn’t finish. Just rubbed me the wrong way. Couldn’t say why but had no interest for more. Then saw praise of her and qas saddened to see much of ot framed around hawtness. Good to know it wasn’t just me unimpressed.
Athywren
There’s no reason to believe in the existence of any gods absent an emotional investment in some religion, as there’s no evidence for their existence other than the claims of the religious. If you decide that religion is a means of social control, for instance, then any claims made on behalf of it, including the existence of its foci, can’t be trusted, and since there’s no outside corroboration, no religion=no gods.
Oh for crying out loud, Dawkins reposted it.
Why “tone deaf, blar-harring dipshit” is such a virtue among some movement atheists I’ll never know.
Tony #3
I first heard about her when Ophelia posted about an earlier video of hers attacking feminism. (Which I can’t find any more. I wonder if she was shamed into taking it down.) She starts by looking up the dictionary definition of feminism and says she pretty much agrees with everything there. Then, she says stuff like this (paraphrased from my notes while watching the video):
-Calling yourself “Feminist” is exclusionary to men.
-FGM is bad, but what about male circumcision?
-Some woman she never identifies supposedly said, “He held a door open for me! That’s Patriarchy!”
-Some woman she never identifies supposedly said, He invited me to have coffee in his hotel room! That’s sexual harassment!” (Which sounds to me like a really fucked up mischaracterization of ‘Elevatorgate’.)
And so on and so on. Even though she read off a valid definition of feminism at the beginning of the video, ISTM she gets her personal definition of feminism from the “Dick-tionary According to ThunderF00t”.
I didn’t like her before it was cool to not like her.
moarscienceplz:
A certain contingent of online atheists made such a big fuss over 4 little words. It’s rather ironic that they also try to argue that words don’t have power.
__
Those 4 words had the power to piss off you fuckers and shut off your ability to logic.
moar @ 30 – I think you mean this one:
Hey, that’s not the one I was looking at!
This one.
http://youtu.be/_ji4t7HhIjw?list=UUravYcv6C0CopL2ukVzhzNw
So who’s taking bets on how long it will be until she starts writing for A Voice For Men? Or is she already doing that?
Is she trying to channel Christina Rad? Might be unhappy at Christina’s video critiquing her claiming that Elliot Rodgers wasn’t a misogynist. All in the name of stopping internet drama of course…
Ok that’s nuts. I went to a separate PAGE this time, a page for a different video that is not the new one.
Pff. The title is I’M A RAGING FEMINIST!!! Apparently there’s no way to get the correct url for it.
Ophelia, I even went to her YouTube accounts and I don’t see it. I really wonder if she deleted it.
Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, make Youtube videos.
I’m a Raging Feminist!!!
OK, now that Ophelia gave me the title, I found it. Let’s see if this URL works.
A HA! Team work worked!
Tony @32
Glenn either believes what she’s shovelling or she’s trying to head off waves of creeptastic behaviour experienced by other atheists-while-female by planting her flag with the arseholes. Either’s plausible; the latter would at least be understandable but, sadly, the former is more likely. She’s not the first woman in this loose affiliation of non-religious internetizens to burn other women and sloppily caricature them in her quest for clicks (it is all about clicks, right? Right? [/sarc]).
Whether through honest ignorance or via a steady diet of misinformation (of which there is no shortage) Glenn simply doesn’t appear to understand (and certainly didn’t actually research) what actual feminists are actually saying, to the point where her intent to parody them is so fucking clumsy it ends up something of a meta-self-parody.
Glenn’s performance – and the style of it in general – is like Clint Eastwood haranguing that empty chair, or the endless stories told by apologists of brave Christian students stumping arrogant atheist professors with unanswerable one-liners: utter bullshit designed not to convince opponents but to reinforce existing dogma. It should be beneath her, but this isn’t the first time she’s shown where her allegiances lie – and who could blame her, really? In online (especially youtube) atheism, behaviour like this is rewarded while honest discussions of sexism and the heavily patriarchal bent of Euro/Anglophone culture in general are laughed off as unnecessary 1970s-era anachronisms at best, modern Vagylon Bra-lek misandrist attempts to enslave all the brave manly mammoth-hunters and steal their baby-gravy (or something) at worst.
I’m totally on board with Jaclyn Glenn when she’s talking about religion, but when she talks about “radical” feminism . . . ugh!
Salviati and Simplicio she is not.
So what are her motivations? Does she enjoy PUA behaviors as affirmations of her being “hot”, and thinks if it works for her it must be good for everybody?
“As a member of a group that experiences regular oppression and harassment I think those other people in my group who actually try to do something about those problems are being whiny and stupid. They should be cool and laid back like me by shutting up and not talking about those problems.”
I’ve seen this countless times before and every single time the person doing it is skyrocketed to instant fame as the hordes of oppressors and harassers cheer them on and give them platform after platform to lecture the rest of their group about how they should shut up.
Note also that Glenn plagiarized from a commenter for a Facebook post about this same lame video.
Ophelia Benson
You mean this one?
Aw, she’s doing her best GWW.
@50 – GWW took me a moment. Ill.
@this – I’m a blogger for A+ (did u kno we have a group blog?) and I can say that even with Dawkins promoting this hit piece, it has not yet brought a wave of trolls to our gates.
A Plus is like a sleepy little village with occasional rambunction from the newest members that tends to quiet down or disappear in its own time. Not exactly something worth pointing your cannons at.
Really, she must be getting her info straight from the ‘Pit, because no one else in the universe has anything to say about us anymore. We’re cold-chillin’ and it’s OK.
But if anyone wants the latest haps from the most “PC police”-styled head of the supposed hivemind, check out http://atheismplus.com/blogs/ . We update, like, totally occasionally. And the writers other than me are pretty dang sharp.
Dawkins did more than promote this video. He called it ‘brilliant’ and said anyone who didn’t agree was probably doing something wrong.
latsot – That makes me feel good, because I know Dawkins is a raging ass these days, and it gratifies me to offend the right people. But it also strikes me even more bizarre that for all this new round of abuse of the A+ bogeyman, no one has bothered to come pester us to our faces.
Actually, that’s kind of nice, so I’ll stop tempting fate by talking about it.
@40 Hey, not everyone (although, probably most) on YouTube are this bad. Some of us are trying to lift the standard.
I just had a typical YouTube moment in which I read the comment of a kid, saying they’re singing the song featured in the video. It was followed by “Thanks for sharing, I totally care and wanted to know that.” When people responded appropriately, telling this individual that was unnecessary and assholey and they didn’t have to inconvenience themself by responding to the post they were so offended by (seriously, a kid saying “Imma sing dis in mah talent shooooow”) the asshole in question doubled down with “How is it shitting on people? I doubt anyone really cares, it’s a pointless comment. For fucks sake, it’s only a step away from the people that comment “I made a cover of this song and everyone says it’s great!”” and ” I commented because the only purpose of this comment was fishing for compliments, not anything related to the song.” Apparently ignoring something that has absolutely no impact whatsoever on you is UNPOSSIBLE and responding with extreme assholery is necessary and righteous. People can be such goddamn douches.
And I think most of the reason the crowd that forums and blogs under the title A+ (Atheism+ is an idea, not an exclusive club, but when people threw tantrums about Atheism+ it was usually about the handful of people who self-identify as Atheism+, not the idea) doesn’t get talked about anymore is they determined what they wanted was a small, exclusionary clubhouse. So few people are involved it’s just not relevant to most of the world and, really, and anyone hoggling over how, what, twenty people, I’m guessing, want to spend their time together can’t even feign legitimate concern for any impact those individuals might have on the world. It’s just intentional angry obsession over something irrelevant. It truly has no relevance to their lives so obsessing over it makes them look stupid as shit. Slimepitters are cool with that though.
I subscribed to her channel maybe a year ago. Back then she wasn’t so bad, but as time as gone on, her overly simplistic understanding of issues and defensiveness have started to get under my skin. This video was the last straw and I unsubbed.
I understand that this will probably be deleted by the blog owner, and I understand that all the “feminists” and all the “good guy atheists” will be going nuts over me and probably want to shoot me in the head. However, you sir, are retarded. (No offense to retarded people[There just isn’t a better word to use in this case]) I am not a Jaclyn Glenn fan boy, but I will say that she is entirely correct in this video. First I have to clear something up, and that is the comedic effect. Jaclyn Glenn makes videos on Youtube. Having a “job” in Youtube means that you are an entertainer. Denying that means you don’t know anything about Youtube. Now being an Entertainer does not always mean being funny: en·ter·tain·er
ˌentərˈtānər/Submit
noun
a person, such as a singer, dancer, or comedian, whose job is to entertain others.
Now that that is out of the way, we go on to the rest of your post. In this video, Jaclyn Glenn performs as two character roles, Jaclyn Glenn and an overly dramatic animal rights activist. Jaclyn Glen (the role) debates the activist in a seemingly pointless debate. And it is honestly pointless. The activist has a sense that if you are not with me 100% you are against me. Jaclyn (once again the role) tries to calm down the activist by trying to show her that they do indeed believe in the same thing. However the activist does not listen and becomes angry. Jaclyn (not the role) ends the video saying that that is her life right now.
Your first point said that if you were to debate yourself in dorky clothes and a ridiculous Christian demeanor, would it be effective. No. No no no no no no no no no. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc You missed the point COMPLETELY. This video was NOT about debates between two parties with different opinions. This video was about two parties with slightly differing opinions where one party gets increasingly angrier for no apparent reason, when the reason is that the two parties have differing opinions. This is to show that the atheist community argues with themselves over stupid little things instead of working together for a less ignorant future. What is the difference between Atheists and Anti- Theists? What is the reason for them to fight? There is no reason.
Being a major atheist on the Youtube community, and a person who gives her opinion to a mass of people, consisting of both supporters and oppressors, she is subject to debate. Jaclyn Glenn is making a point that she is tired of all of the debating towards the atheist community by the atheist community.
By the way your comments at the end make you seem stupid and make you seem very unprofessional. Please understand things fully before you decide to give your opinion.
Hope this doesn’t get deleted :) ~Adam
[If I could get paid a dollar every time some yahoo shows up and announces that he’s probably going to get deleted for his bravely contrary views, we could probably get rid of the annoying ads. I also have to note how thoroughly these people who routinely accuse others of being professional victims have wrapped themselves up in the mythology of their own victimization. Dumbasses. –pzm]
Here’s the dilemma faced by PZ Myers today:
(a) Will I go after the bigoted multi-millionaire “liberal” atheist comedian making jokes about domestic violence and mental illness? Or,
(b) Will I go after the young female atheist who made a frivolous video for YouTube?
Sir, I salute your courage.
Dear PZ Meyers and Great American Satan:
The reason why you don’t hear any criticism of Atheism+ is because everyone who has been brainwashed by the movement is totalitarian in their blocking/deleting of any opposing viewpoint on any Atheism+ affiliated website. The only reason this comment might stand a chance is so that you can’t say “we let you say what you wanted so there.” You consider opposing viewpoints equivalent to blasphemy, which is odd because when someone questions what you believe in shouldn’t you as an atheist be able to constructively engage in debate? Atheism+ers rarely do this. Instead they post their views and disable comments. Post their views then purge all opposing viewpoints in the comment section sit back and go, “golly we have a quiet little hamlet here.”
I personally believe the Atheism+ movement is unnecessary. Atheism is simply not believing a god exists. You can be a worthless excuse for a human being and an atheist or you can be an amazing resplendent individual and an atheist both are acceptable as atheists.
Acknowledging myself as an atheist doesn’t wholly define who I am as a person. Atheists believe we should separate church and state, but I also believe we should separate the general labels from the complex individuals they try to describe.
I believe that the Atheism+ movement came from a place of well intention, one that wanted to show people that we aren’t devil worshipers and people with no happiness. Instead it has horribly divided a community by being very theistic in its way of saying “If you do A your no friend of mind and are a horrible example of an atheist!” Isn’t that what Catholics do to Protestants? Orthodox Jews do to non-orthodox Jews, militant Muslims do to non-militant Muslims?
I believe that non developed nations need Feminism. I believe that every right I need I have. I am not afraid of randomly being raped, I don’t think that consensual vaginal penetration is rape, I believe that if I do equal work I will (and have to date) receive equal pay. I am not a feminist but Atheism+ says I have to be or I am not a good atheist. This is a ridiculous notion and needs to stop. Atheism being recognized as legitimate in any way that it counts is still in its infancy, please stop trying to divide us at a time when we need to be united.
Then ignore it, the way you do every other group you consider to be cranks.
I’m genuinely glad to hear that. Do you understand though that you are not representative of every woman?
Oh for fuck’s sake. Who has said that consensual sex is rape, exactly? Quotes?
If PZ strikes down the last few comments (57-59), surely it will be because he cannot tolerate their authors’ rigorous commitment to exposing reality just as it exists. I mean, it is totally speaking truth to power to stuff the words of an Andrea Dworkin who never was into the mouths of the A+ folk. Or to imply that PZ has to go after silly little girls sharing a laugh because he’s too chicken to go up against the rich and powerful. Or to act as if no one on the side of feminism has ever made clear exactly what our differences are and that we’re getting hysterical over trivialities.
What would we do without the brazen honesty of brave heroes like these?! How humanitarian of them to attempt to extricate us from wallowing in the shrill echoes of our confabulated victimhood. Let us heed their call for cohesion and ally ourselves beneath them for the sake of that most precious and rational philosophy: Atheism!
Amber Schweitzer
Its Myers. Can’t any of you dullards spell?
Bah, try again.
.
Amber Schweitzer
Its Myers. Can’t any of you dullards spell?
It’s wonderful to bathe in the privilege of not being attacked for standing up for yourself.
No it came from being attacked by fellow atheists for daring to oppose blatant sexism.
Why not? I certainly don’t want anything to do with atheists who don’t understand the concept of treating everyone fairly regardless of race, gender or age.
Adam Dargiel
The divide isn’t between Athiests and Anti-Theists. Where did you get this from? Do you actually understand the situation?
The divide is between atheists who want to address social justice issues, and atheists who don’t give a fuck about that and want to concentrate on beating up on the easy targets of creationists. And it’s the latter group that perpetuates the conflict by trying to get the former group to shut up, rather than just ignoring them.
Also, stop being such a martyr with the ‘oh, my post might get deleted!’ crap. And really, don’t use the word which you use to insult PZ. You recognise that it’s not cool but do it anyway.
If atheism is simply not believing a god exists, then there is no need for any kind of atheist movement. You can just go on disbelieving in gods on your own. Nothing about disbelieving in gods implies the necessity of secularism, after all. Nothing about disbelieving in gods implies that theism is a bad idea, or that it needs to be stood up to.
#57
It’s hard to work together towards a less ignorant future (kum-bah-yah!) when a sizable portion of your “movement” are willfully ignorant about the systemic denial of the very personhood of women and other marginalized groups, and call attempts to redress inequality and stamp out bigotry “stupid little things.”
This must be the most idiotic rhetoric and most amazing example of modern day herd mentality I’ve seen lately. Saying Jaclyn Glenn somehow promotes or propagates the discrimination of women is absolutely ignorant. This hive mind mentality that everyone in this thread is showing is absolutely the reason people, even though they support and understand the hardships women face, don’t want to claim the title of feminist. You are all proving the exact point Jaclyn made has made in some of her videos. Well done on being ignorant, hive-minded, slaves. You aren’t and won’t make a bit a of difference by excluding and ostracizing those who are on your side, especially those like Jaclyn Glenn. *Here’s a slow clap for stupidity*
Amber @59:
Wrong blog nitwit.
That was just a bunch of insulting accusations. There wasn’t any content there. You’ll have to expand on your point everyone here is stupid and blah blah blah.
It wasn’t a reasonable or thoughtful video. It was mischaracterisation and dismissiveness. That’s not how you engage people. That’s how you impress AVfM.
Bryan Roland:
Many people agree on subjects = hivemind.
Sure thing buddy.
How in the world would you know how effective anyone here is? Are you are internet and meatspace stalker, following people, tracking their every movement? Do you have copious notes that show that the actions of people here have made no difference? I’d really like to see that.
Alternatively, are you a psychic?
Failing those two, I have no idea how you could know how effective people are.
Oh, and people like you and Jackly Glenn are most decidedly NOT on my side. She mischaracterizes feminism, and beats a strawman to death. And you support her. Do fuck the fuck off fucker.
Tony (#70)
No, no, that can’t be it. Look at these brave fellows and fellowettes who agree that PZ is horrible and Glenn is wonderful. Are they a hivemind? Inconceivable!
Btdubz, who is this “us” I’m trying to divide? And why do we need to be united? Seriously, what can we accomplish together that aligns with my values? Because it’s likely whatever you think it is we need to stand together on I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about. I’m really not that impressed with creationists being made to look dumb.
I’m thrilled that there are women who have never suffered as a result of sexism. That’s fantastic. The experiences of these women though don’t invalidate the experiences of every woman who has suffered as a result of sexism. I’m glad you get paid the same as your male colleagues and were encouraged to pursue all the same opportunities made available to men and boys and haven’t been raped and never struggled to access reproductive healthcare and haven’t had someone jerk off on your leg on the train. The thing is your experience isn’t universal. Extrapolating that “Because sexism hasn’t negatively affected me the developing world needn’t discuss it and all of you just have to stop talking about it because you’re making me uncomfortable” isn’t rational.
Amber @59:
1- Atheism + says nothing of the sort. It’s a concept that says “hey I’m an atheist and I also advocate for social justice”. Why you people can’t understand a concept that is so simple even a caveman could grasp it is beyond me.
2- Who the hell has said consensual vaginal penetration is rape? This is yet another problem with you stupid fuckfaces: you mischaracterize your opponents in an attempt to tear them down. It doesn’t work because you’re not engaging what people are actually saying. Just like Jacklyn Glenn. You’re tearing down mountains of straw all the while providing ample evidence for the depth of your assholery.
3- I’m glad you’ve led a nice life where you’ve managed to be shielded from sexism and misogyny. A lot of women in developed countries can’t say the same. Hence the need for feminism.
The Glass Ceiling exists.
Rape Culture exists.
Sexual harassment in the workplace exists.
Female objectification exists.
Women are poorly represented in the media.
Women are poorly represented in politics.
Women are treated as sex objects.
Women have seen their right to bodily autonomy eroded in the US.
These are just a handful of reasons that feminism-the ideology or movement that advocates full political, economic, and social equality for women-is still necessary. Even in developed countries.
4- There are people like the Amazing Atheist who are vile assholes who engage in victim blaming.
There are people like Thunderf00t who don’t think conventions should have harassment policies bc his fun is more important than providing a safe environment for all attendees.
There are the asshole contingent of the atheist movement that got pissed off because Rebecca Watson offered guys advice on what not to do. Pissed off so much they dragged her name through the mud, photoshopped her, and sent her rape and death threats. FOR YEARS.
There are people like Michael Shermer who have engaged in such creepy, predatory behavior that women have warned each other for years to avoid the douchebag.
Those are the type of people I want nothing to do with. I don’t want to be part of an atheist movement that tolerates people who are such vile misogynistic assholes. You do…that’s your business. Says a lot about you as a person though. Ain’t none of it good.
I wonder how many of these #braveheroes (who swooped in here all non herd mentality like) are libertarians.
Bryan Roland
Why should I consider Jaclyn Glenn to be on ‘my side’? Because she’s an atheist? It takes a bit more than that.
Hah! Thanks for proving my point even more so. Thanks much Tony. You are proving you know nothing about Jaclyn or I, yet you make blanket judgments about both of us. Ignorance and hive-mind mentality abound, just as predicted! Jaclyn is full on for the protection of and propagation of women’s rights/equality, and the edification of women in our society. As am I. Atheism + is retarded. Atheism doesn’t promote or assert anything. Trying to tag anything onto it is an abuse of the word. It is common sense that a cause or movement that subjugates, belittles, or dismisses it’s allies will not prosper. If you ostracize those who are sympathetic to your cause, you won’t last. People will just stop trying. Look throughout history. Do I need to be a psychic to understand fundamentals of human interactions? Does it take a superior intellect to understand that if you piss in people’s Cheerios they will no longer rally for your cause? As for the hive-mind, yes. It is a very correct use here. There is no critical thinking or exploration here. There is just, “Hey, this guy that we agree with said this, so we agree with it! ARRRGH! Jaclyn is a demon!” Also, I don’t agree with everything she has said. For example, I disagree with her views on the Hobby Lobby decision, which I would wager most of you would agree with her on. Don’t be so fucking simple minded.
@thetalkingstove Perhaps you should fucking do some research and learn for yourself instead of taking one person’s word for it. Or, you could just demonize and ostracize a stranger for no real reason like an idiot, such that you are now. The choice is your.s
You seem smart.
I should research why I should consider Jacyln Glenn to be on ‘my side’? Why? You’re the one demanding that we not be critical of her.
‘Demonise’, ‘ostracize’ – what are you talking about? Criticism of a youtube video is not ostracizing anyone. As can be plainly seen by the support she’s getting from the likes of Dawkins, she’s hardly a pariah.
Much of the negative reaction to Atheism Plus is a bit like punching people in the face, and then accusing them of being divisive trouble makers, while ignoring the fact that you’ve just punched them.
The atheist movement is already divided. Women being sexually assaulted at meetings creates divisions. Covering up these assaults creates divisions. A 24/7 campaign of Twitter abuse creates divisions. An in-meeting harassment campaign, aimed at a woman who’s raised vast amounts of money for the meeting creates divisions. Arranging for that woman to be continuously filmed creates divisions. And having the fucking gall to accuse those walking away of “being divisive” creates divisions.
Bryan Roland
Exhibit A from a stupid nitwit. Who’d want you on their side? Not me. Fuck off back to your pit. Here post the people that care about the welfare of others, you obviously don’t give a shit about who you hurt.
If atheism doesn’t promote or assert anything, then it isn’t a movement, or a “side”, and being an atheist doesn’t make someone my ally in anything.
You keep railing against people tacking additional ideas onto atheism, and on the other hand keep stating that atheism itself is nothing… So what are you left with?
Exactly Forbidden Snowflake! You’ve got it right! Atheism doesn’t promote women’s rights. It doesn’t promote discrimination. It doesn’t promote anything! It is, by definition, the rejection of the assertion that there is a god. A person who saying they are an atheist doesn’t make them anything other than someone who rejects the proposition of a god. Nor should it. There is no moral high ground in atheism. This is what people so often get wrong. You should absolutely not consider a person your ally in a movement for equality because they claim to be atheist. You should consider them to be an ally for what they claim and promote. In the case of JaclynG, she promotes equality and fair treatment of all people whether they be trans, bi, gay, straight, black, white, minority or majority. All people should be treated as people, equally. On even ground. I believe that! Jaclyn, as I understand her, agrees with that as well! Her videos show this. I don’t have videos, so you can either take my word for it or think of me a liar. At least Jaclyn has a track record you can research before judging her.
Hey Lofty, thanks for proving my point. You don’t know what atheism is. Good job.
Thetalkingstove, thanks! I consider myself smart to some, not to others. Thanks for the thumbs up, though! I try to have well reasoned and rational ideas/thought processes for why I believe the things I do. That is more than can be said for most people. I am always open to being corrected, so if something I say is wrong, please provide evidence and I will gladly change my stance.(please note that opinion doesn’t count as evidence) But, really? You are asking me why you should be informed before forming an opinion? Are you serious with that question? And yes, as evident in this thread, people within the feminism movement like to ostracize Jaclyn for some, to me, unfathomable reason. She often makes videos promoting women’s rights and equality that align with feminism. So, that just doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps you can explain why you are criticizing someone who agrees with you and help me to understand?
The term “atheist” is very restrictive, in that implies a rejection of one notion (Theism), without giving a hint of a broader worldview. That’s why I believe Naturalism should be widely adopted by those who currently call themselves atheists, as it would include opposition to the occult and supernatural within the definition itself.
My original question was ‘why should I consider myself on the same side as someone who holds an opinion I strongly disagree with, just because she’s a fellow atheist?’
And your answer to that question is…do some research? That is not an answer.
See above. She very obviously doesn’t agree with me that feminism is important and relevant, as evidenced by this crappy video. Ok? The fact that she and I are both atheists is irrelevant to me.
Your assertion that tagging anything additional to atheism is an abuse of the word still doesn’t follow, and your characterization of atheism is still ridiculously incongruent with the very existence of the atheist movement. Guess what? An idea that “doesn’t promote anything” does not require a movement.
Is the terms white, brown, black, circular, straight, fact or fiction too restrictive? No, that is just silly. There are words to define certain things. We can’t allocate all meanings to all words to suit our tastes. They have definitions for a reason. By definition, atheism/atheist doesn’t promote or claim anything. If you want to assert feminist/masculine/minority/majority/whatever claims, the you are stepping out of the scope of atheism. Jaclyn has actually addressed this as well. If you want to claim something or assert something, then find another title/term in my opinion. Atheism isn’t the banner to be flying for it. If you do, you are wrong by definition.
Forbidden snowflake, then you just don’t understand what atheism is. Someone who doesn’t believe in the tooth fairy is an “atoothfairiest”. Do we claim that they then are also feminists? Or progressive in anyway? Or claim anything else in any way? No, that is silly. They just don’t believe in the notion of a tooth fairy. It is the same for atheist. It is just the rejection of a proposed god. Nothing more. It does follow, you just don’t know the meaning of the word you are trying to use.
So much stupidity packed into so few words takes something approaching genius. Atheism, of course, does assert something: that there is no good reason to believe in divine beings. But, in the most limited definition, that is all it asserts. That’s why, for many people who care about social justice, simply reaching that rational conclusion and therefore calling yourself an atheist is not enough; and why a subgroup of those people have adopted the eminently reasonable label “Atheism+” – because they recognise that atheism in itself does not promote social justice. Got it yet?
Ugh, where the hell did I say you should agree with her because she is an atheist? I said the exact opposite. Think for yourself for a minute. Holy shit. Stop jumping to conclusions. You’re acting like a theist, knowing the answer before you ask the question.
So, by that standard Nick, I am now making up my own movement called feminism plus. And it states that feminism isn’t enough because it needs to incorporate all men, all mammals, reptiles, and fungi to all be treated equal. They should all share equal rights under the banner of feminism+. Do you see how incredible stupid that is? Now, apply it to your statement you nitwit.
Here’s what you said:
You are saying that we should not criticise Glenn, because she is on ‘our side’, i.e. she is an atheist. Unless you meant something else by ‘on our side’, but I can’t imagine what, given Glenn is clearly positioning herself as anti-feminist.
Just because she doesn’t claim the title feminist doesn’t make her anti-feminist or against the movement in anyway. That is a very big stretch. You should be a politician with your reasoning here. Your actions, and the actions of those on this board, are exactly what put a large portion of people off from joining your movement even though they agree with it’s claims.
Also, criticize her all you want. I have on several occasions. But, at least have a reason for it. And, if you disagree with her on one point that does not make her anti-feminist or anti-equal rights. It doesn’t make her a sell out. Disagreeing is healthy. It leads to healthy dialogue. Talk to her, send her a message, make a video or a google hangout and discuss the issue. Don’t just watch one video and make a blanket judgment that she or anyone else is evil. That is what the people who you rally against do! You are acting like the bigots!
Actually you miss one point. What does your atheism mean? What it should mean, is that you also disbelieve in the society based upon biblical patriarchy, sexism, bigotry, etc. Why should you accept a biblical society with those problems? What is wrong with treating people as people, with respect and dignity? That is what atheism means to those who think beyond the dictionary definition. Those who aren’t too afraid to ask what should be the consequences of being an atheist.
The hivemind of the dictionary defintionist is a waste of something that could be good.
A bad video has been criticised. That’s the sum of the dreadful, movement-rending crime that’s been committed here.
Right. It’s bigoted to watch a video and say ‘I disagree with that’.
Only in your delusional mind, that doesn’t look at the consequences of your beliefs. Your whining is typical of those who disbelieve in deities, but want to keep the societal problems based on the beliefs in deities. You stop thinking beyond a certain point. Or rather, you don’t think the situation through, and can’t stand those who do.
Ugh, so narrow minded. The people I’m interacting with here act just like theists defending their beliefs that have no foundation. It is circular and tiresome. I see why your name is the talkingstove. Talking to you is like talking to a stove. Nerd, atheism doesn’t promote anything! Just because you don’t like the definition doesn’t mean you can change it to suit your needs/desires. That isn’t how things work. Of course I have problems with how a this(the American) religious society behaves. I have many problems with it. And many of those problems stem from my problems with religion. Some don’t. A lot do. However, atheism doesn’t address those beliefs. It just doesn’t. You can’t just change the definition of a word to suit your needs. That is illogical.
Adam Dargiel
I think this is the fastest Bingo we ever got
Frozen Peaches? Check!
Scare quotes? Check!
Men and feminist being mutually exclusive? Check!
Insinuating that the guys are just in for the cookies? Check!
Mental health ablism? Check!
General ableism? Check!
Fake apology? Check!
“I’m not but…”? Check!
Broad claims that somebody is beyond any doubt? Check!
Enlightening the sheeple on very easy concepts? Check!
“It’s just a joke!” Check!
Dictionary definition? Check!
So, Jaclyn sets up a nice straw carricature of her opposition and then brilliantly tears it down. Cool. I mean, that’s such genius!
Yep, git you. My fundamental desire to be treated as a full human being is a stupid little thing. Sure you know how to present yourself as reasonable, making brilliant arguments, engaging your opposnents with wits and data.
You’re talking to yourself, right?
Amber Schweitzer
This means that either PZ is not A+ or I’m hallucinating. We’re also not actually talking about soebpdy who is in opposition.
Great that we figured that out. I like three impossible things before breakfast.
Can you decide yourself which one it is? Total blocking or not.
Of course, the argument could be made that PZ secretly deletes and blocks all the witty and intelligent opponents and only lets clowns like you and the one above stand.
And you care so little that you need to tell everybody else.
But what community? I though atheism is just not believing in gods, right?
You don’t need a community for that, sure?
Yay, gratitious racism and dear muslima!
Nope. You’re simply not a good person. We have long figured out that atheists can be horrible assholes.
Bryan Roland
I’m done addressing you, Nerd. You bring so many fallacies to the table it isn’t even worth addressing you further. You have nothing to offer n intellectual conversation. Bye.
Wow, you sure showed me. What a zinger!
Lol. You speak of strawman and bring many yourself. Much funny. Thanks for the morning dose of hypocrisy.
#76, Bryan Roland:
Wow, Mr Roland, you seem…idiotic.
I have to make a couple of points about your claim about atheism. You want to claim it means nothing more than that there is no god, right? Then 1) where did this idea come from? Is there no history or epistemology of atheism? Are all atheists just automata who had this idea pop into their head, contrary to the dominant ideas in their cultures?
And 2) atheists just stop there? There is no god, but this has no consequences or meaning, it’s just a fact about the universe with no implications whatsoever. Remarkably incurious creatures, these atheists. They have come up with an axiom, but they draw no conclusions from their premise at all. It just is, a fact, but an irrelevant fact, floating in a universe in which believing the opposite, that there is a god, has profound effects on people’s behavior.
3) Further, when some atheists say hey, wait a minute, atheism is an important idea and we ought to use it to correct the harm done by religion by promoting constructive social improvements, other atheists get terribly upset and try to dehumanize the social progressive wing of atheism by calling them “retards” and insisting that it is an abuse of atheism to actually try to do anything good under the atheist banner. Atheists seem to think that extending atheism to include belittling efforts to better humanity is just fine, but actually working towards equality (remember, there is no Chosen People, nor are particular individuals blessed by god) is anathema.
4) These same irate atheist purists then regard any subgroup that goes off on their own to endorse humanist causes to be personally offensive, a direct attack on their views. They must be silenced. They must be howled down by people like Bryan and Jaclyn. Why? Because they are victimizing atheist purists, and therefore they are all professional victims (don’t ask me to explain the logic there — there is none). Their very existence demonizes Jaclyn Glenn! Anyone who disagrees with Jaclyn must belong to a hive mind (again, I cannot explain this)!
I must also point out to Mr Roland, because he isn’t very bright, that none of my criticisms in this post were a rejection of her anti-feminism, or anything about the side of the argument she has taken. It’s about her form. She has made an embarrassingly illogical and unpersuasive argument, caricaturing her opponents with views that, as far as I know, none of them hold, and declaring herself the victor over an empire of straw. That’s just bad, bad, bad. As I pointed out above, even if she were making an argument I agreed with, that for instance atheism is a more accurate view of the world than theism, I would be face-palming in sympathetic embarrassment at how badly done it was.
Stove, bring up a rational point and I’ll address it with a rational response. It’s pretty simple.
mickll 37. That was my first impression, I had seen the video where Christina disagreed with her. But I got the impression that she wasn’t mad, just wanted to state the factual mistakes of her statements.
But I don’t know if they are at odds or not.
Yes, your whining and irrational arguments can stop anytime you desire. Just shut the fuck up.
You are funny. You’re the one who came here to tell us not to criticise Glenn because she’s on our team.
I’ve explained that actually I don’t consider her to automatically be on my team. So we’ve cleared that one up.
What else do you want to talk about?
It’s stupid because the idea of human/fungi equality is stupid, not because the idea of starting a movement to work toward a goal is stupid.
Stop. Think. What is it exactly that you are ridiculing, and why?
PZ, no. Not at all. Where did I say anything about atheists? People who hold a certain point of view of certainly able to draw other conclusions. They can even based off of other conclusions. That is a very narrow point of view. I never made that conclusion, you jumped to it. I merely stated what atheism is by definition. The proposition for most atheists I’ve ever encountered comes a lack of evidence to support the proposition that is a god. How is this contradictory to what I stated? Let’s break down number three. Atheism is a banner that all who do no believe in a god can claim. When someone uses to their own wishes, it detracts from or dilutes the meaning that others flying under that same banner have. Again, I propose that if someone was to say that they are making a feminism+ and saying that this new and improved feminism should include speech/protection/consideration for all men, women, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects I would wager that a large portion of feminists would have something to say about that. It is the same for atheism. Not everyone who is a atheist agrees with feminists arguments. There is already a place for feminists, mra’s, and everyone else to speak their mind about their social issues. Hijacking another movement’s name isn’t needed. Just as you wouldn’t like me claiming this new banner of feminism+. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I would wager many of us do support women’s rights. And LGBT rights. For that matter, equal rights for all. That is something most atheists can agree on, but not something that atheism itself addresses. I’m sure you can see this point by now, yes? No need to further beat a dead horse? You know what (I’m sorry I don’t know you and whether to call you sir or ma’am but I would use one to show a level of respect here if I knew which to use)? I would agree. This video linked grated my nerves as well. I actually found it annoying to watch/listen to. However, the view of the thread was that Jaclyn was vile and anti-feminist. Which I would say is incorrect. I was merely trying to say that it is wrong to make blanket judgments about a person based on a limited perspective. I’ve watched/listened to Jaclyn stand up for women’s rights and be advocate for women’s issues many times. So, I see it as inaccurate at best to say she isn’t, especially from such a narrow point of view. I know we all snap judgment at times, especially when we have emotional triggers hit. But, as rational beings, we should try and advocate reason and sound judgment as much we can. I don’t want views silence. I want them expressed. Even if those views are bigoted, racist, or any other form of ignorance. People have that right. However, those people don’t have a right to speak for me, or any other person. If I had a public platform to speak out and started making wild claims about how my beliefs are feminist views, I’m sure you’d have something to say just as atheists have something to say about others speaking for them.
Nope, you sceamed it loud and clear. Self reflection is not your suit. You are WRONG, but can’t acknowledge the truth.
No fuckwit, it is all you want the movement to claim. Those of us who think about consequences know better. It means more than the dictionary definition. Why are you even here? You make no sense. You can’t see beyond the end or your own ego…
Since when is criticism silencing? Unless, of course, you belief your own inane and selfish opinions should be free from criticism. Free speech is where you and others can be criticized by our free speech. Freeze Peach is where fuckwitted opinions can’t be criticized, or it is silencing them. Why are you for Freeze Peach, and not free speech?
I fail to see why this is difficult:
1) Any movement like the “atheist movement” is an inherently political and evolving entity.
2) In an evolving “movement” there will be discussion about which actions need to be prioritised. This is a simple consequence of the limited nature of available time and resources for people active in any movement.
3) This is, as noted, an inherently political process with all that entails, from good to bad. So there will be power struggles, in-fighting, diplomacy, rifts, discord, accord, compromise, working together… everything.
4) It is a positive sign that rifts/discord/factions appear. This is evidence that different groups/people with different priorities are developing their own courses of action and discussing those priorities. This is, perhaps counter-intuitively, how things get done. Sub-groups within larger movements set their priorities and act accordingly.
It’s also the sign of a healthy, non-stagnant political movement. More mature, more established movements tend to have mechanisms in place that function as means to quell dissent and individuality. We’re seeing precisely that sort of mechanism with the “why can’t we all get along?” complaint, although this is a relatively ineffective one. Look at, for example, the party whip system in UK politics for a more effective one. Or the effect of property ownership or health insurance on challenges in the workplace for another.
5) Disagreement, even profound disagreement, over one set of issues/priorities does not preclude compromise and collaboration over another set. For example, I’d cheerfully work with…pick your current bogey-sexist of choice for example…to combat the teaching of creationism in schools if such a collaboration were (politically) necessary*. I’d equally cheerfully criticise and oppose (the sexism of) the same bogey-sexist of choice whilst doing so, before, and afterwards. In a reasonable environment, and done well, this is a feature of a healthy public discourse and movement.
6) One of my favourite quotes is by Germaine Greer**:
It’s relevant here in many ways. Leaving aside considerations of power struggles, who is at the “top” of the movement and who may or may not want to be there, because that speaks to motivations and assumptions not in evidence, this constant intellectual and ideological revolution, and most importantly, ethical and moral revolution is VITAL for any organisation or movement, political or otherwise.
Look for example at one of the stand out criticisms of the Catholic church: not just that sexual abuse of children occurred, but that such abuse was both actively covered up and exposure of it was actively combated. That is a powerful oligarchy in action. Whether politically, ethically, morally or intellectually, it doesn’t matter which angle you come at it from, that series of actions is aimed at the preservation of a “thing” in the face of perceived challenge to/attack on that “thing”.
That is precisely what we must avoid in “movement atheism”. The failure to adhere to priorities previously set, not because those priorities have changed based on evidence and rational re-examination of them, but because the priorities have shifted in such a way that the preservation of an “oligarchy” (intellectual or otherwise) has risen to the top. Okay, so “movement atheism” is comprised of humans, and as such this sort of oligarchy and suppression of “revolution” is inevitable, but it can be minimised. Constant criticism, constant self-evalutation, constant challenge. These are not merely excellent political principles, they are foundational scientific principles.
7) A great deal of what is being asked for, in terms of language, interaction, ethical standards and consideration of priorities take effort. More than that it takes self analysis. Which itself is hard work. There is a natural resistance to these things. People comfortable in their position and self identity are perfectly normally and naturally going to resist things that make them question and examine these things to varying degrees. Push back and complaints are what is to be expected. Especially where people’s identities are concerned.
8) If people are talking about means of communication/activist efficacy, then time and time again it’s been shown that pluralism of methods is the best possible option. Don’t like the way X does it? GREAT! The criticism is possibly useful as long as it’s constructive. What’s even better than stopping at criticism is doing it yourself using your own method.
Is it tiresome to point out that “I’m not that sort of atheist”? Sure it is. But it is both a natural consequence of being a member of a stigmatised group (whether it should be a consequence is a different story), and a natural consequence of being a member of a diverse group. Shallow understanding from people of good will will always be the biggest hurdle any social group has to face.
When it comes to style, let a thousand flowers bloom. Anyone can be an atheist, and so there will be a huge number of effective methods of reaching people.
Louis
* Whether, in such an immature, nascent political movement as “movement atheism”, such collaboration is actually necessary is a different argument. And one I think there is, rightly, a wide variety of opinion about. There’s a good argument to be made for supplanting more “traditional” voices by not collaborating with them on some/many occasions.
The size and nature of “collaboration” matters too. For example, if in magical, hypothetical, logical analogy land there was a referendum on establishing a national religion in the USA that fell down to a yes or no question, no atheist here would vote to establish a religion because Thundrf00t was voting against a religion’s establishment. That is, at the very low end of the spectrum, what I mean by “collaboration”.
Does this mean I’m going to then go on a tour of the world with Thunderf00t, using my millions made through a Breaking Bad style methamphetamine empire (hey, this is hypothetical analogy land, I can do this, I just won’t!) to provide him with a massive atheist uber-platform? No. On that level of collaboration I think the guy is a piss poor example of an atheist to tout, promote and popularise. Others may differ. And they should feel free to spend their hypothetical methamphetamine empire earned millions how they see fit.
** Whether one admires, agrees with, or anything else-s Germaine Greer is IRRELEVANT. In this instance WHAT was said is more important than WHO said it. IF you then wish to ask the question “what sort of person said this” THEN who said it is, and other aspects are, relevant. It’s the same issue with Feynman on the other thread. The physics he did stands, obviously, apart from the man. The use of the man as a symbol and icon doesn’t. Confusing the two is fatuous crap. So using Greer or Feynman as icons, as heroes, as examples of WHO a certain class of people, scientists, feminists, whoever, should aspire to be, necessitates an examination of WHO these people were/are as people and WHO is part of that aspiring class. WHAT these people have argued/demonstrated, and how right/wrong/accurate it is is separate from that. It’s the crux of what’s behind the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. The “arguments” are independent of who made them, logically. What’s not independent is the idolising of the arguer as some sort of exemplar. This is relevant and is germane (hurr hurr) to the larger point of this comment. These are all issues at different levels of the whole, larger problem under discussion:
If all you are considering is if a wall is covered with paint or not, then the colour of the paint doesn’t matter. Is paint on the wall? Yes or no. If what you want to do is decorate your house, then the colour matters quite a bit. Then, if you go into a paint shop and discover that all the paints are red and have a funny smell when applied, and you want a non-smelly blue paint, you have a problem. You have a bigger problem if the majority of the paint shops all stock the same thing, if there’s a big marketing campaign to push red paint and an equally big marketing campaign to dismiss claims about the smell. You have an even bigger problem if, when you ask for non-smelly blue paint, you are harassed for doing so. Hounded through various media and insulted and threatened. You have an even bigger problem than that if, when you point out that there is a wide spectrum of colour out there, all of which is perfectly fine to decorate a house with, and that the production of paints in all hues and shades is perfectly possible, the marketing campaign by the red paint advocates, stockists and manufacturers reaches greater levels of noisy and noisome nature. And finally, you have a colossal problem if, when the harmful nature of the smell is well demonstrated, legal attempts to make non-smelly red paint and the desire to decorate in colours other than smelly red are deemed counter to the good functioning of society.
Also, frozen peaches, garnished with the tears of muppets are intoxicating and delicious. And make me fuck up HTML tags apparently.
Louis
Lol, Louis. I haven’t read through the first post yet, but the last really made me laugh. That was pretty damn funny. I’ll try and respond later to your post, for now I need a nap.
*facepalm*
How the fuck is “Atheism+” (or your fictional “Feminism+”) hijacking anything?
It’s simple. The “Atheism” part means that the movement stands for atheism. The “+” part means that the movement stands for additional things beside atheism (and does not claim that those things are a component of atheism). To call this “hijacking”, you literally need to believe that people who hold certain political opinions aren’t allowed to also be atheists. Or to be living in bizarro world.
Bryan @82
If you read back Lofty said nothing of atheism. They just said that someone who would use the term “retard” is not on our side. Seriously they term is unimaginative and hurtful and if you pull that out, you are clearly not on my side. It’s not about atheism it’s about not wanting to hang out with assholes.
@96
Knock your socks off. I may think it’s silly but I won’t make or support any videos straw-manning your little club. Really it’s no skin off my back if you want to make your own space on the internet.
What I don’t get about you, and those like you, is how “us” (hiiiiiiiiiivemiiiiiiiiiiiind) saying a video is poorly thought out is tearing the movement apart, but a video aimed at social justice warriors (because that’s a bad thing) is totally awesome and “brilliant”. If one is divisive isn’t the other?
Nor should it? What the fuck do you think that means? Atheists shouldn’t be good people? They shouldn’t aim for a “moral high ground”? Or even more than that, there is no such thing at all? Why? How does any of that follow from a fucking definition? If you’re not conflating “morality” with “religion,” then how is anyone supposed to make any sense of this? Isn’t it the case that all people should be moral, that atheists are people, therefore atheists (individually, as a group, as a movement, or whatever) ought to be moral? Therefore, atheists ought to promote good moral (and otherwise correct, honest, etc.) views in their broader society and their personal interactions with others, just like anyone else, so that is what atheists and atheism ought to be. Not what it is, mind you — what it ought to be. There are indeed plenty of other things to say about a person besides their beliefs about gods (or the supernatural more generally) — those are exactly what you aren’t apparently taking into account, but you instead talk about irrelevant fantasies like “changing the definition of atheism” which nobody is even trying to do.
Anyway, they aren’t in any way exempted from these responsibilities because of some pedantry about the definition of a word. But if that is not what’s implied by the view you’re giving here, then what could it possibly mean?
But that’s not what anyone thinks ought to be done. Do you have anything other than beating up strawmen? Everyone is quite obviously aware of the existence of atheists who are total assholes. That doesn’t mean atheists ought to be total assholes, or that we should say nothing whatsoever which is critical of their assholishness.
Certainly, not for the sake of some “movement” that supposedly says and does nothing about anything that exists. Your argument that this criticism entails some kind of “divisiveness” just doesn’t make sense. The idea that asshole atheists will stop being atheists, that I drive them away from this “movement” (construed as being about nothing, essentially) when I criticize their assholishness, is simply ludicrous, but even if it does happen on some rare occasions, I could not care less whether a bunch of stupid assholes do something stupid and assholish like converting to a religion for some bullshit reason like that. I’m not just on a mission to convert as many people as possible to “my cause” (of disbelief in gods) — just like everybody else who thinks about it for even a minute, I also want the world to be a better place with better people in it.
So if I understand the whiners correctly Athiestm+ is a hive mind which refuses to allow disagreement, which they showed by disagreeing with this video.
Also that expecting Athiests to actually be decent human beings and work towards making a better world is a distraction and waste of time, but attacking those who do so is a perfectly legitimate use of Athiest’s time and resources.
And lastly that feminism is completely unnecessary in America and that those who still think it’s needed are shrill harpies who should shut up,
So hey here’s a fun challenge: Can any of the whiners point out where PZ or any regulars on these threads have argued that jerkoffs like Dawkins and Feynman aren’t Athiests? You constantly screech that we’re excluding people from Athiesm for disagreeing on social issues, so surely it’ll be easy to find an example of us denouncing their Atheism. Not someone saying they’re assholes and don’t wanna be associated with them, not that they’re an embarrassment to the rest of us, but one of us actually saying that they refuse to consider someone an Athiest because of their social views. I’m sure it won’t take long to find an example.
So the fuck what? Those people are wrong. If you’re an atheist, don’t you care about whether or not beliefs are right or wrong? Otherwise, why even bother identifying for yourself what your beliefs are in the first place? And if this somehow “detracts from or dilutes” their wrongheaded bullshit, then I’m quite satisfied by that. I’d call that a feature, not a bug.
Also, slow the fuck down with your responses, use paragraph breaks, edit your fucking spelling/grammar mistakes, and start making some fucking sense. Please.
Criticising something said by a person is silencing someone ? And yet it is Bryan Roland accusing people here of acting just like theists. Man, you sure have proved your superior reasoning skills here Bryan. I am in awe.
Say “hive mind” a few more times, then we might get it. Try throwing in a “sheeple” or two as well. I gotta be shaken from my ovine/insectoid complacency every now and then.
Guess that all the organized atheists better stop advocating for secularism, skepticism, and science education. Because atheism is just lack of belief in gods. It’s a completely inert philosophical position that nonetheless must be strenuously defended with thousands of non-paragraph-broken words.
Got it. Modifying words with other words abuses words. Guess I better strike all compound words from my vocabulary. A shame too, because I was planning on enjoying some pepperoni pizza later today.
I also want to know if criticism of and disagreement with Jaclyn Glenn is silencing Jaclyn Glenn, then why isn’t criticism of and disagreement with me silencing me?
WHY ARE YOU SILENCING ME CRITICS AND DISAGREERS!? WHY!?
It’s one of those irregular verbs isn’t it?
I disagree or criticise because I have reasonable concerns
You are a shrill harpy
He/She is a quisling suppressive Nazi scumbag coming to set fire to my pubes and kids
…
Louis
Louis,
Clearly you silenced me with your long screed that posted while I was writing my short reply. You wrote something longer, more thoughtful, and with the bonus of humor making sure I feel inferrior. STOP SILENCING ME! Help help I’m being oppressed!
Your jib also has a better cut than mine. Stop with the oppression already.
Louis
You’re a man, you can’t be silenced by definition.
Check-mate, feminists!
Brian the Blessed Dullard
Haha. Any more ridiculous assertions you’d like me to believe before breakfast?
Guess what, you don’t know what a rational appraisal of atheism leads to. Not having to agree with a religious figurehead’s every thought! Morals come from compassion and understanding when you don’t accept morality from up high. Does your atheism absolve you from having moral decency?
Hive-mind: many people disagreeing with my point of view.
Agreement: many people agreeing with my point of view.
HappyNat,
I confess to many sins:
1) I haven’t read the thread in any depth, so I’m not really replying to anyone.
2) This issue, or at least issues bearing an uncanny resemblance to it, has come up before a BAZILLION times (no exaggeration). Criticism of religious sceptics in “movement scepticism”, of scientific icons in science outreach, of methods of inclusivity/exclusivity in any communication medium…
…it’s really, really, REALLY familiar.
3) I am a thoroughgoing piss-taking bastard. My ability not mock the Freeze-Peachers is tiny. Really bad. I actually have to make effort to stop mocking them. Their plaintive cries are the perpetual whine of anyone anywhere being asked to make the tiniest intellectual and moral effort about anything ever. Whilst I empathise with the feelings, I feel the same way frequently, I do not sympathise with the fucking whining. I’ve done it, I know where it comes from, I know why it’s done and it bores the tits off of me.
4) Screed? Outside. Now. Car park. Fight. Beer after. You’re my best mate you are. (Do I need the ;-) to indicate the humorous thingummy? I better put it there. This am the Intarwebz after all. whilst you might understand, there exists Not Entirely Honest Interlocutors Of Dubious Intent)
Louis
Giliell,
Ahhh but I am a FemiNazi Quisling Mangina Omega Male Pussy Whipped Man-Hater-Man-Traitor…
…ah no, wait, as you were. Clearly I am part of the Oppressive Gynocracy that is keeping men down…
…no but wait! Thunderf00t is CLEARLY being silenced because reasons. As are dear sweet Leader Vacula and the Brave Heroes who use Churchill’s speeches to open their podcasts (I haven’t got over that, it’s too fucking funny). They’re silenced! SILENCED! SILENCED by your Womanpression of their Important ManFeeFees and by your Wicked FemiNazi Softening of their PeePees.
Feminism: Hurting FeeFees and Softening PeePees, one Man at a time. {Wink and Gun}
Louis
So there’s thing called “mathematics” which includes a number of modifiers. The “+” symbol is one of these modifiers. It’s inclusion in the label is, essentially, a recognition that atheism says nothing about you other than your opinion on the topic of gods, but that these people actually want to say something about themselves. Now, obviously, as we have all recognised, “atheism” says nothing about what you believe outside of the god thing, so any other views must be “in addition” to atheism. I know, I know, it’s a complicated idea, but you can work it out of you think about it for a while.
Yes. Hence the rejection of youtube-style atheism.
Gotta love these kind of comments. While we’re on the topic of how all feminists thign consensual vaginal penetration of rape, why don’t you expound on the issue of all atheists believing in, but hating and rebelling against god? Because who gives a fuck about understanding the positions they’re criticising?
re Roland@82:
:blockquote>It is, by definition, the rejection of the assertion that there is a god.
I disagree. I think A-The-ism, is rejection of “belief in God”: -ism = ‘belief’; the-, = ‘God’; a-, = ‘without’. “Atheism” is simply “without belief in God”; it is NOT asserting the non-existence of God, just that there is too little evidence to allow one to believe God exists. I’m digging deeply into the etymology of the word cuz you seem to be stuck in the dictionary is the only possible meaning of the word. That’s why you say, “atheism makes no moral qualifications”, etc. etc. You seem to stuck on “atheism” being only exactly what the dictionary defines the word as being, and to add anything to the definition of the word (by tacking a “+” onto it) is perverting the word; that it distorts the word into meaning something completely different and ruining perception of people who want to be atheists without the + attached.
I’m tempted to repeat what others here have said about the expansiveness of the atheism+ movement; but I won’t; too much has been written in this thread, and I can’t add anything written better than existent.
TL;DR. The dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. Don’t use dictionary definitions as a trump card (metaphorically). It is not the final authority on what words mean and how they should be used. It is just a book that describes how used are commonly used and what they commonly mean. It is not an ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on exactly how words are supposed to be used. Basing one’s arguments on dictionary definitions is _weak_, to say the least.
I like atheists. Atheists, on the other hand, are mostly a bunch of fucking assholes convinced of their own extreme importance.
(note the capitalization and lack thereof).
Which is ironic, given that one of the main lessons that the idea that there is no god, no creative force, and no transcendent love for us in particular makes available is that, cosmically speaking, we’re not really important at all.
Athywren @134: Well said!
Louis,
I’m been a fan of you piss taking screeds (I mean that is a good way?) for some time. The fact that you would like to beat me up and get me drunk is an honor, or is it honour?
I also kinda see where they are coming from with the freeze peach, it sucks to be told your opinions are stupid or worse toxic. It’s happened to me and it’s not fun. When confronted you can either look at it objectively and try to become a better person or you can dig in, double down and when you run out of arguments accuse others of censorship. It’s the last stand of people with nothing else of value to say.
Athywren,
ARE YOU CALLING MY MOTHER A LIAR!?!!?!?!?
Louis
@Louis,
Yes! And… AND! Your grandaddy were a monkey!
HappyNat,
I absolutely do not, in any way, wish to beat you, or anyone (….hmmmm homoeopaths…no no…dammit ethics…) up.
This getting drunk thing you mention, however. I have heard good things. We should try it.
Louis
Whatever anyone says I will disagree with. Better yet I will plug my ears, close my eyes and avoid/ignore input from anyone else. It’s the only way to fight the dreaded Hivemind!!1!™
I’d hazard a guess that no-one here would give a shit what a numpty like you chooses to call your stupidity. At most, it might be good for a laugh.
So nobody wants to discuss the Naturalism thing then? #83
There are best practices in activism as in everything else, and someone who thinks she or he can just wing it and be effective is not just deluding themself, but probably harming the movement.
You can find the best practices in books like:
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
Midwest Academy, Organizing for Social Change
Gitlin’s Letter to a Young Activist
Stout’s Bridging the Class Divide
and Part V of my own Lifelong Activist (entire text available for free at http://www.lifelongactivist.com )
I wouldn’t have an opinion if someone slapped the label Feminism+ on whatever they were doing. I really don’t care. I certainly wouldn’t shit my pants, call them retarded and tell them to stop being critical of other feminists because we’re supposed to stand together or something.
I’m not really interested in associating with people I fundamentally disagree with who happen to be atheists just like I distance myself from foul feminists (thank goodness they’re the fringedwelling acceptons to the rule.) The notion I’m “retarded” because I consider the way this video’s creator conducts themself very poor is ridiculous though. I’ve civilly criticised the mischaracterisation, dismissive tone and smugness. For that I’m getting called names.
After reading All the Comments, I’ve come to a conclusion. If mainstream atheism is claimed by the likes of Jaclyn Glenn, Thunderf00t, and their Brave Hero supporters who have been commenting here, I’m glad I’m not wanted in their movement. I’ll go back to calling myself a secular humanist if it keeps them off my back, and otherwise just go on minding my own business and doing what I think is right.
As long as I get to hang out with the hive mind, stomping on freeze peaches, I’m happy. :)
Can I assume that Bryan Roland is also ranting at groups like American Atheists, for having a name that implies that they “speak for” atheists, and for having an agenda beyond “pointing out the fact that god doesn’t exist”?
So, as far as I can tell, some folks are arguing that atheism means nothing more than a lack of belief in god(s) and utterly stops there. Ok.
Some other folks then said that atheism can and should mean more – that it should be atheism plus humanism – and called this atheism+.
And now some folks who wish to emphasize the difference between their “pure” atheism and the additional aspects of atheism+ are upset because the atheism+ists are pointing out the difference between the two. Did I get that straight?
In other words, people like Bryan Roland here want to make it clear that there is a substantial difference between atheism and atheism+ and are unhappy with people supporting atheism+ by pointing out that there’s a substantial difference between atheism and atheism+.
Well, in the face of a brilliant argument like that, I can do nothing but concede.
I really hate it when the Youtube Atheists drag their taints through here.
I may have missed it in all that but did anyone – anyone at all – come up with a notion on why, if atheism means the rejection of a belief in god(s) and nothing more, there is any need at all for us to stand together?
No, I thought not.
So, I can do my own analysis, promote the schemes which interest me, protect my own interests and still claim the label atheist. Yippeee!
I have one! Because we care about other people and, since we’re all atheists, we’ll have an easier time organising to help others if we do so with other atheists who won’t accuse us of being evil for failing to believe what they believe. But… that’s atheism, plus caring about other people.
Meanwhile, at a Dictionary Atheist conference…
“I don’t believe in gods.”
“I don’t either.”
“Nor me.”
Cup of tea, anyone? No? Okay, see you all next year then.”
And that, Athywren, just rules us out as top people, great leaders, public faces of atheism!
jodyp (#148)
YouTube dogs dragging their taints through here would be much better.
Bryan Roland #76
So, if I were to make the claim that killing atheists is wrong, you’d be right back here, objecting to this horrible mixing of atheism with extraneous ideas, right?
If not, why is it okay to add one kind of “plus”, but anathema to add another? For that matter, what do you think the “plus” represents?
#82
We know that, dumbass. That’s the point of Atheism+; to distinguish between the atheists that do support equality and those who don’t. Seriously: THAT’S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.
#109
As long as the “plus” bit doesn’t actively negate the feminism part, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. You’re welcome to organize a group of feminist quilt makers, feminist volunteer firemen or feminist cheese lovers. Knock yourself out. I might think you were being a bit silly, but I certainly wouldn’t waste my time arguing with you about it.
Let me leave you with a question: A lot of groups are atheistic and also promote scientific skepticism. Do you object to that? If not, why not?
Daz @ 151: Yeah, that’s pretty much it, except you forgot the “This makes us SO much more intelligent than those stupid plebes” part.
Bryan Roland
Ya know, for future reference: sometimes there is more to an idea or subject than a simple one sentence definition. That’s why encyclopedias and dictionaries aren’t the same thing. That’s why textbooks and dictionaries aren’t the same thing. That’s why they college classes instead of just a list of vocab words and a command to just read their definitions in the dictionary. Just thought I should let you know. Apparently, with all of the arguments where we have people clinging onto “definitions” very few people are aware of that little tidbit.
You had the first sentence right and then failed immediately in the second. Or that is to say: it may true that people might use that “banner” in a way that a lot of others don’t agree with, but that doesn’t make them fit under that “banner” any less.
Think of Christianity. Fundies don’t like Catholics, but both are still Christian. Fundies don’t like lax Christians, but they are still Christian. Lax and mainstream Christians don’t like fundies, but fundies are still Christian. Doesn’t matter if one is detracting or diluting the meaning of Christianity: they all have a right to the title.
Why? Because it implies that feminists don’t already support rights for men? Or because you are stupid and think we object to being associated with a feminist group that supported animal rights?
Okay, you are just a fucking idiot after all. Go figure.
LEARN WHAT A SUBSET IS.
Hijacking another movement’s name? Atheism + is a distinct thing, you fucking moron. It isn’t just atheism. It isn’t just feminism. Heck, it isn’t even just social justice. It is atheism plus social justice. It is a subset of atheism, it is a subset of feminism, which itself is a subset of social justice. It is an area where all of those interact. It does not demand that these three things are one in the same in all situations. In fact, the very existence and necessity of “Atheism Plus” implies the exact opposite .
And this is the same anti-feminist who was just spouting about “rationality”. On a thread where the strawman spouting anti-feminist had a shirt with “Logic” on it. It is like fucking clockwork, I swear.
I’m sure you would even let a woman use your bathroom.
What part of “plus” don’t you understand?
Dunning Kruger.
We deeply apologize for assuming that someone arguing against a blatant straw feminist was anti-feminist. Heaven forfend.
So apparently your emotional trigger was “feminist atheists existing”. Poor baby.
Yes, yes, I already noted your ironic cargo cult invocations of “rationality”, just like every other apologist for the menz brigade.
*cough* Unless that view involves acknowledging the existence of a specific group of atheist feminists. *cough*
That’s great. A racism and sexism and homophobia enabler, excusing himself in the name of FREEEEEEEEDOM. Never seen that before. *eyeroll*
What? Did you just compare Atheism + to bigots speaking up in your name? If so, please just go fuck yourself.
I swear to fucking god, for anti-atheism plus brigade, we need to get a particularly patient first grade teacher to sit everyone of them down, and draw a Venn Diagram and slowly explain, step by step, over the course of an hour or six, what it means that “Atheism +” is in the part of the Diagram where Atheism and Social Justice overlap.
“B-b-but, doesn’t that mean that all of atheism is Atheism +? Doesn’t that make Atheism + the best atheism? Doesn’t that mean that atheism is just a form of Social Justice? THINKING HURTS ME ARRRGGGHHHH!!!”
I don’t have much to add to this discussion, except for one question to the dictionary atheists: Why do you get so offended by atheists supporting feminism when most of you are perfectly happy to support the separation of church and state, oppose religious inspired child abuse, and oppose creationist education? None of those are part of any dictionary definition of atheist either. When you understand why you have extended your “mere disbelief” to those causes, perhaps you might come close to understanding why others see social justice as an extension of their disbelief.
Of course, I may be giving most dictionary atheists too much credit here…
Totally agree with whoever has mentioned this, but who is an atheist because they love people? How does that even follow? They are completely separate things. I’m an atheist because there isn’t decent evidence for the existence of gods. Also I “love people.” Two separate things.
Yes, it sounds silly, but when she says it in the video, a plaque pops up explaining that actually, she’s an atheist for a whole other reason, and she’s an anti-theist because she cares about people and sees religion as harmful (or something along those lines; I’m not watching that shit again). Which does make more sense.
So while PZ has a point with saying the “love people” bit is paying lip service to atheism+, mocking her for the apparent illogic is kind of strawmanny. Time to stop that.
Atheist because I love people? Well I love people, apart from the occasional pose of comedy misanthropy done purely for fun.
How about this by Karl Marx:
I think atheism qua atheism, and the communication and dissemination thereof, has value in and of itself because of precisely this. I think it is, generally, a good idea to move away from deliberately illusory conditions as far as is practical and possible. Not the only valuable thing, but a start.
Louis
Sorry, I have to ask, what is Jaclyn Glenn’s “thing”? What does she contribute to atheism that’s unique? I’ve listened to her talk and nothing she says is unique or particularly thoughtful or even very interesting. It’s all been said before many, many times often better by smarter people. That’s not a slight against her – I’d do the same thing if I set myself up as a YouTube warrior. I wouldn’t offer unique insights or enlightening commentary. I’d be saying much of the same superficial stuff many people before me has said better than I could.
What is Glenn’s appeal? She’s not particularly thoughtful or insightful. She isn’t funny or uplifting. She’s just white bread. Why do people watch her knowing she’ll say the same shallow things so many others have said more eloquently than she will?
57:
Is there any reason at all to continue reading this comment? And how the hell did you even type it with one hand and both feet nailed to a fucking cross?
If the first half of your opening sentence is a pathetic little martyrdom fantasy in complete opposition to the fact that hardly anyone gets banned here and those that do are repeat-repeat-repeat-then-repeatedly-warned offenders or blatant drive-by trolls as opposed to simple passers-by honestly disagreeing with the host, I see very little to compel me to even read the second half.
Fuck, if it was my blog and I saw a comment that started with “I understand that this will probably be deleted” I’d go ahead and delete it without reading the rest, just for shits and giggles and to waste the time you took to write the stupid thing.
Regarding the “omg ur dividinz teh atheisms!” whinge, I’m going to beat my own pinata and repost this comment of mine from another thread [https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/07/19/i-get-email-35/comment-page-1/#comment-822937]:
screechymonkey @146:
I hope he also rants at them for strongly implying via their very name that all atheists are Americans, which is rooly totes divisive as I’m Australian.
And he should save some of his moxie to go up against the granddaddy of them all – GOOGLE PLUS. What the hell’s wrong with me just using it as a search engine? What is is this e-FASCISM of FORCING everyone to use the G+ social network? It’s more like fucking AUSCHWITZ PLUS am I right???!!1111!!eleventy!! First they came for myspace! Then they came for facebook! Sieg plus! Arbeit macht freeze peach!
/obviousfuckingsarcasmforthosehardofreading
Hank_Says,
This “sarcasm” of which you speak, I am a curious and wish to read more. Do you have a newsletter to which I could subscribe?
Louis
I’ve never been a particular fan of this woman. As an agnostic, she seems to be more selling something than giving a philosophy or any level of intellectual thinking. She feels more like an advertisement for atheism that someone who’s trying to engage an actual discussion.
I understand why she does what she does, but I’ll never subscribe, I’ve better things to do with my time than leer over something on that level.
i don’t understand the animosity of Jaclyn here, she has often said in the past she full supports women’s rights, she just disagrees with tactics and ideas currently in the modern feminist movement. the use of Atheism + was just to illustrate that.
how is this a bad thing to disagree and generate new methods and ideas while discarding outdated and/or ineffective ones?
What constructive ideas are presented to make sure women are fully equals in society and the workplace, and not subject to sexual harassment and rape? Nothing. Just bad attempts at strawmen with hyperbole as to what feminism really means.
well one of the methods is dispelling the myth that there is some particular effort to keep women out of the workplace or that they do not have equal opportunity in society. do you think differently?
as far as sexual harassment in the workplace, there already exist large organizations dedicated to preventing that sort of situation (though rarely for men) and as far as rape, that is not as huge as modern feminists try to protray it as. other forms of violence are much larger yearly and also disproportionately effect men, but i digress. rape most often is from a current or previous partner, and it dissends from there along level of familiarity to stranger. so really to prevent those situations is not something laws or policies can fix, its women (and men) to choose partners wisely, and take the needed precautions if the situation turns ugly (restraining orders etc).
Fine, you can do that. Unfortunately, she doesn’t actually address those tactics, and instead constantly brings up the kind of bogus boogeyman version of feminists that the MRAs love to trot out. And further, in this video, she can’t even address that…but instead invents this bizarre dialog between two animal rights people who argue about cats vs. dogs.
I kind of suspect that you wouldn’t be able to rattle off any of the objectionable tactics and ideas of modern feminism without putting up an army of straw men, too.
The “myth” is dispelled with evidence from sources like this:
not from strawmen, attitude, and hyperbole.
You have evidence women are completely equal and certain professions don’t actively inhibit the presence of women you care to share for us to laugh at???
@davidmcdevitt, 168
Personally, I don’t understand the animosity toward [conveniently constructed hypothetical strawmanner] here, they have often said in the past they fully support atheists, they just disagree with all the devil worship and baby barbeques currently in the modern atheist movement.
How is it a bad thing to disagree with things that aren’t happening and pretend to generate new methods while actively dismissing a movement that’s actually doing effective things?
#170
If by “particular effort” you mean a cabal of patriarchs planning the subjugation of women in ark halls, croaking with sinister voices “how will we keep those females out of the workplace?” then you’re right, that’s a myth. It’s also a position that nobody here holds.
On the other hand, if by “particular effort” you mean the largely unconscious social inertia that causes women to be consistently undervalued and treated as inferior, then you’re wrong. That’s no myth.
It’s a simple fact that women are underrepresented in a number of fields and that this oddly correlates with women in those fields reporting frequent discrimination and dismissal of their concerns. Is it really so unreasonable to think that there might be a connection between these facts?
This is so obviously untrue, it’s ridiculous. For example, support for women’s shelters, training for police in handling reports of rape or other abuse, or scrutiny of college policies for handling such cases; these are some concrete ways that we can improve the situation.
That’s three possible ways off the top of my head.
to PZ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ji4t7HhIjw
she goes into the details here. and i agree with many of her points.
unfortunately, Nerd of Redhead basic burden of proof. you need to show that those things even happen in the first place.
but sure here:
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
women get near the same or more professional degrees when compared to men. they are not being prevented from reaching this level of education at all.
and to show the misleading information:
http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/recentfacts.htm#age
if you look at the percentages its about 57.2% women vs 69.9% men. seems like a big difference? well that is because of how they choose to calculate these numbers, and what they mean. in this case its comparing the total population of eligible men and the working men vs the total eligible women and the working women.
the actual numbers of working men vs working women in those percentages are 76,353 for men and 67,577 meaning the mean of the working population women make up about 47% and men 53% menaing the difference is only 6%
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm
:lykeX
for your first part see my other comment.
as for your policies. well those things already exist, the issue is often rape cases are he said she said and even if guilt is likly we cant move forward without significant evidence. so how does that help in choosing good intimate partners or other preventative measures?
Yawn, nice attempt at misdirection,
No attempt to explain the wage differences, etc. that demonstrate beyond a doubt institutional sexism. Sexism that is prevalent and shown by slower progression of women in the workplace, the lower salaries for the same work. The microagressions of being interrupted and told what they think by male chauvenist pigs, and other means of making sure women keep to their place of supporting men, not leading men. Show women represent half the state legislatures, gubernatorial mansions, and the same exists at the national level.
I’m still waiting for the evidence women are fully equal. Rape and sexual harassment doesn’t exist, and doesn’t make for toxic society and workplace. You claim there is true equality? PROVE IT.
um, not a misdirection as you never brought up wage gap issues till just now. but way to sound super condescending with no justification.
also once more burden of proof. you say there is institutional sexism by all means prove it, it doenst just exist cause you say it does.
also i never claimed that rape and sexual harassment doesnt exist or that they are not toxic to the workplace. are you saying that equal opportunity (what i said we have) = no rape or sexual assault? how does that follow?
(note i am seeing over and over again people in this thread mischaracterizing what i say at every possible turn.)
@davidmcdevitt, 178
What do you think misdirection means?
Here’s a hint; this answer:
does not answer this question:
In answering that question with that answer, you “misdirected” the conversation. It’s what some people call a “non sequitur.”
Since you’ve brought up the numbers of women getting professional degrees, though, how do the earnings of a woman with a professional degree match up with a man with a degree of equal worth?
(Btw, while you can bring up the burden of proof to dismiss the question, I don’t have the time to hunt down the numbers on that, since I’m moving house in two days and my life is packthebox packthebox packthebox right now, so I’ll just trust you to be a skeptic on this and do the research.)
Being a collectivist, I will help out Athywren. Earnings of a Lifetime: Comparing Women and Men with College and Graduate Degrees.
Figure 2, about halfway down, tells the story with some of that reviled ‘data’ that the Twoo Skeptic so artfully disdains.
They exist, so problem solved? We don’t have to at all discuss if any improvements could be made? We’re just done now?
Here’s an article where the police themselves admit that they’ve got a problem with sufficient training. Are you going to believe the police or are they also part of the evil feminazi conspiracy?
As for college policies, I’m glad to hear that that’s all sorted out. Yep, no room for improvement there.
Some would say that the issue is that perpetrators can rape the victim in public, in front of multiple witnesses, record video of the assault, spread that video on the internet, and still get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
These are not obscure or unique cases. This stuff comes up all over the place, all the time. Why don’t you know this?
davidmcdevitt, the null hypothesis, based on history, is that women have been blatantly discriminated against in the past. Ergo, sexism still exists and is still manifesting itself in various forms.
The burden of evidence is upon you to demonstrate total equality at all levels, with no sexual harassment, and no rapes by males to about one-in-six of women.
So, where is YOUR evidence?
nerd of redhead, that is not the null, you dont get to declair by fiat that your position is the default. thats just silly. you have to show it is still happening and that there is an express effort to keep it happening.
lykeX you didnt read these articles did you? the first is about disabled women and what has been wrong with dealing with those crimes in Victoria, Australia.
as for your other link, yes those situations can happen, and i agree the police should have handled it. but again without evidence it is unfortunatly a he said she said, and its worse when its alot of people vouching for eachother. this is why physical evidence is needed.
the reason i dont buy it is cause it is not that common. those cases are a minority of sexual assult cases which are a minority of violent crimes in general. its terrible that that can happen to people men or women, which is why i am such an advocate for preventative measures as opposed to just throwing anyone suspected of sexually assulting people into jail, as our need for evidence and inocent until proven guilty is a much in our legal system.
as far as the misdirection thing, fair enough, i thought that was realivant information to bring up as i was unsure how to approach that question as i dont think those stats exist.
and to the link given, if you read how the numbers are generated it gives no indication of the career choices each group made just over arching names for those perfessions types. further they are estametes generated from ‘ Lifetime earnings are synthetic estimates based on average wages for graduates by five-year age cohort, degree level and field.’ but it doenst go into any more detail than that. not to mention this is only info from Indiana.
Given that the same method is used to arrive at women’s incomes and men’s incomes, this affects the shape of the curve, how, exactly?
So, instead of making naked assertions, and looking for picayune objections that don’t pass the simple logic test, how about you produce some data to back up those assertions?
Because I can find data from all kinds of places to back up mine. You’ve not produced neither jot nor tittle of your own.
Because there isn’t any to produce, jackass. You’re pulling nothing out of your ass but shit. This should not be surprising, as “your ass” is not the place actual thinkers go to look for data, but rather the place thinkers go to look for shit. You go there looking for data. This should provide a lesson for you, but I doubt it.
Sorry, my previous was @ davidmcdevitt #183
caitie scroll up i provided data for my comments. but continue straw manning my position by all means ill just ignore it :)
daz my objection is it is highly specualtive, as in they are projecting what they think the eventual wage disaprity will be, which is not helpfull, and it does nothing to show the ‘why’ these income disparities may or may not exist. it could be the actual job choices, or hours worked, or some other differneces not covered in this study.
Yeah. So what? Because they’re disabled, they don’t count?
My bad on that. I pretty much just took the first one off a google search. I’m sure I can dig you up one from America if you really insist.
So, do I have to? Do you still maintain that American police officers are perfectly trained to handle these matters and that there’s no room for improvement or discussion on this?
So, you agree that there’s from for improvement and that policy can be sharpened on this area?
Never mind your attempts at changing the subject and introducing yet another strawman. You claimed that law and policy couldn’t do anything in this regard. Are you willing to admit that that was bullshit?
also once again it is just indiana
studies that cover more variables make the wage get smaller and smaller.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/08/debunking-the-myth-of-a-mythical-gender-pay-gap/
here is a laymen rundown of how that works ^
Good grief. Can you think of a biological reason why women, on average, end up in lower-paid jobs, working fewer hours and so on than men of equal ability and with equal qualification? If not, then the answer has to be societal.
This. Is. Not. Difficult.
so i probably should reword what i said. a wage gap does exist but its not because of sexism. the reasons behind it are much more complicated.
Daz thats a classic, though interestingly applied, argument form ignorance fallacy.
Those thousands of rape kits that were never examined? Didn’t exist. Video footage of footballers raping someone, and still there was a huge push-back against persecution? Fairytales! Rape cases are ‘he said, she said’.
All of those instances of non-existent prosecution of sexual assault cases? No, no, it’s the other way around, men are thrown in jail without any evidence!
Women have less opportunity in society? Bullshit, woman get more degrees, therefore this is not the case!
Wage gap? Non-existent.
Sexual harassment in the workplace? Organisations exist for that! Problem solved!
davidmcdevitt, you don’t understand the animosity against Jaclyn because you erroneously believe the same bullcrap.
191 davidmcdevitt
So explain them…
No fuckwit, it is HISTORICAL, and well documented. You don’t define the discussion at all. You respond with evidence, or you shut the fuck up. That is science. I know, I’ve been at science for 35+ years. Non-scientists don’t understand null hypotheses, and the like, and try to make everybody else demonstrate what they say. Doesn’t work here. Put up or shut up.
Except the 4-6% that cannot be explained away, liar and bullshitter. We’ve had this discussion here many times. Your misdirections don’t work. It’s been done too often by folks like you, who think the world is a totally equal place with equal results. It isn’t.
davidmcdevitt #192
Bullshit. Show me a difference that is neither biologically- nor societally-engendered. If you can’t show the first, then the second has to be true.
Nerd of redhead, i provided evidence in most of my posts, and never went to the intellectually bankrupt activity of insulting all of you that disagree with me.
null hypothesis is something you never have to prove and that cant nessiciarily be demonstrated. ie natural explinations are better than supernatural ones. the null can’t be something like ‘discrimination exists and i dont have to show you it just does’ the null would be ‘there is no discimination until we can show that there is’ you are foisting your agenda as the null and no you dont get to do that. its the same as saying ‘god exists’ is the null unless proven otherwise.
zenlike you clearly only glossed over my comments as i didnt say any of that. but welcome to the club of misrepresenting what i say represents feminism so well :)
to your actually useful comment, hours worked, particular jobs chosen, school you got the degree from, institution in which you work, our stupid maternity/paternity leave policies, and many other issues.
daz now you have a false dichotomy :D
and nerd you need to calm down, no reason to start resorting to even more insults.
that 4-6% is an anomaly yes, which means you cant just say it is sexism either, there are other possible factors to this very small discrepancy.
davidmcdevitt
Fine. Show me, or posit a reasonable example of, a difference which is neither biological nor societally engendered.
If you cannot do so, then any differences must be one of the two; in which case, you need to show the former, or the latter must be true.
How many times would you like me to rephrase this? Don’t just assert that my dichotomy is false. Show it to be so.
Daz id say its a little of both, one biological example is women are the ones that give birth, meaning that with our societal issue of having aweful maternity/paternity leave could lead to many working women to get payed less over their life times. it doesnt have to be one or the other.
Giving birth takes, at most, nine months.
davidmcdevitt,
You’ve never been a woman, have you?
You’ve never been appointed to a middle-management post from a shortlist of 4, the others all men, in tough competition only to find that the company’s Chief Accountant had single-handedly dropped the salary as advertised to a lower figure. Why? Because he had grown up believing that women would settle for less – a belief which I and my new boss had to disabuse him of. Rather vigorously!
Take that, multiply it by a few hundred thousand instances and there’s your pay gap. Yes, it is sexism.
(As it was his sole decision it was fairly easy to bully him out of it. Where it’s company policy or the will of the Board it doesn’t work so well.)
daz well it often results in a child and often the one with the baby feeding apparatus tends to take care of that kid for a while after.
davidmcdevitt #202
Oh and, yeah,
You don’t think this is an example of sexism?
What century is davidmcdevitt commenting from?
well its discriminating to all sexes. and its fueled more by economics. ie why pay for people who will disapear for a yearish when you can hire someone who can work right now.
davidmcdevitt
Sorry, I lost half a comment.
The fact that it’s the woman who is (a) expected to be the one who stays home with the baby and (b) this is often a choice made for financial reasons, because she’ll be paid less than the man; you don’t think this is an example of sexism?
davidmcdevitt #208
Fuck me sideways, you really are the gift that keeps on giving. You think it’s okay to base hiring policy on something a person might do in the future? Okay, when was the last time you were asked at an interview whether you play or plan to play contact-sports which might result in time off work due to injury?
well id venture that choice is made more on the profession/pay/life goals. not all couples work the same job, and are perfect representations of a wage gap.
i only brought up that example as a way to show its based on the money gained/lost for a company not cause its a woman. and i didnt say hiring, i said paying.
davidmcdevitt 211
And it’s just coincidence that the man is usually in a higher-paid job that the woman?
[Is your caps key broken?]
Pay should be commensurate to the work one does, not to the work one might or might not do at a future time. And you avoided the easily-reworded question. Would you pay someone less now because they might be off work with a sports-related injury sometime next year?
So this is actual money gained/lost for a company because “it” (!!) is a woman, or is that because these fuckers are sexist and making a fuckload of assumptions?
Have you ever considered using capital letters, apostrophes, and other forms of correct grammar and punctuation, as well as making some fucking sense every now and then? I know that, along with not being a denialist about the existence of sexism, these are relatively newfangled inventions, but please try to keep up.
id like to see how you came to that conclusion, but id say that that could have something to do with jobs women often choose. as if you check the various links women do choose the less paying jobs more often. now that could be a societal thing, and im all for encouraging women to pursue things like engineering and medicine, but the fact remains it is their choice.
you aren listeing to what i am saying. its not picking a wage on possible baby making, its whether or not to pay for maternity/paternity leave.
No, no, no. This is another of your silly false dichotomies! It’s totally intentional. And that’s not sexist. It’s just selfish asshole dudes being selfish asshole dudes, without ever even thinking about gender at all. I mean, that’s conceivable, therefore it’s true. Therefore, it’s totally okay and we shouldn’t do anything about it as a society.
davidmcdevitt:
Are you aware of the #yesallwomen campaign? If so, do you agree with it?
The imaginary one that only exists in his delusional mind.
oh please i said it as in ‘the employee’
i also find it adorable that instead of trying to refute my points you instead comment on my gramer/spelling on a comment section on an internet blog. i’m not writing a book here and neither are you get over yourself and address the points made or make some other comments. to focus on my writing ability is just silly.
to your small modicum of a point, i am not denying sexism, i am questioning if this IS sexism. unlike you i am unwilling to make that leap without evidence. it is not my default potion to assume sexism.
No, just the intellectually bankrupt liberturdian fuckwittery coming from your keyboard. Your “evidence” didn’t prove you case. You, not us, think it did.
@CaitieCat, 180
Thanks for the sourcing, go team! :)
Ah, it’s so fun when you already know the answers to your questions. And, by fun, I mean horribly depressing.
@davidmcdevitt, 183
The null hypothesis is that which is already supported by the preponderence of evidence. In 18herftyblerft, Darwin had to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection was demonstrable, because the evidence publicly available at the time was not in his favour. In 2014, biologists no longer have to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection is demonstrable in order to make comments about evolution. Now it is those who deny evolution who must demonstrate the veracity of their claims.
There is a long and clear history of women being subject to sexist discrimination. If you wish to claim that this is no longer the case, you must be able to demonstrate that this has changed. (And bear in mind that, while you may be perfectly happy to dismiss clear evidence of inequity as “not sexism,” likely because you are thinking that it’s only sexism if a cabal of men in top hats with handlebar moustaches that they twirl villainously get together and ask “how, pray tell, might we hold these uppity women down this week?” we can actually demonstrate that sexism is still at work. Well, I can’t – moving, busy, also, about to head out to see Monty Python… wtf is up with that timing? Still, yay. But the others here can.)
@Daz, 203
Oh dear god!! I know I was a long labour, but that… that’s just monstrous!
okay so im going to stop answering people that feel a response = insulting me.
so that leaves tony!
honestly i get what they are trying to do with that campaign but i do disagree with it, even using their own stats not all women face rape, or sexual assault or harassment unless you define harassment as literally anything the individual woman doesn’t like. i also dont like the idea that the counter #notallmen was met with such aggressive response. really it feels like the aforementioned victim complex, and more fear mongering.
itd be nicer if it was something like #equalityforall or #egalitarianismforall. that way there is no tacit blaming men who did nothing wrong, or treating all men as prospective rapists.
davidmcdevitt #214
I’ll be billing you for a new desk. You just directly caused me to smash this one to smithereens with my forehead.
You don’t think that this “choice” might have anything whatsoever to do with those being the only jobs they’re actually offered? Did you read Maureen Brian’s #204?
No, I’m reading it.
Well here’s a spiffing idea. Make maternity and paternity leave equal, post-birth. That way both parents get time to be with the newborn, and the only difference is a possible month or so before the birth.
And a-bloody-gain. Would you, or would you not, apply this reasoning to possible sports-related injuries?
Athwyrn, ok then that was a pretty convincing explanation thank you XD but my main issue is im not seeing that evidence. the few posts provided are very misleading, and i explained as to why. further we have had at least two other waves of feminism that have switched that paridiym. ie women cant be discriminated by law now. wouldnt the existence of those changes change the null hypothesis? and if it didnt what would need to be shown to show the null is false?
I’m focusing on the clarity of your writing and how much you care about what you’re saying. Trolling us is one thing: if that’s what you’re doing then I wouldn’t expect anything more. You are certainly capable of hitting the fucking “shift” key, as well as not stringing together nonsensical bullshit phrases, so it’s not about your “ability” or the lack thereof. Indeed, just saying something (anything!) coherent and honest, even about yourself and what my criticism actually was, is not something you’re doing right there.
It’s “yes.” There, your quest for an answer is over now. Or did you not expect to ever come to any kind of an answer, but continue “questioning” this obvious shit like a jackass for the rest of your life?
What I’ve been doing is looking around at reality, instead of digging deeper up my own ass for presuppositions and escape-clauses and vague “possibilities” that are entirely made-up in my own mind. Those are not assumptions I’ve made. I’m just not being willfully ignorant, like a fucking denialist — like you, for example.
The sad thing is, davidmcdevitt probably believes he’s holding his own. He must be a fledgling MRA, though, who left the nest before remembering how all his talking points are supposed to go.
seriously right now Tony (who has made one comment), and Athwyrn (mostly) have been the only commenters that dont make comments that are primarily insults about me. way to represent your points everyone. i reiterate i am not responding to posts that are primarily insults.
Boy, Mr McDevitt desperately needs some remedial 101 work. There are links on the left sidebar to some social justice basics — go read them.
im an egalitarian Noyd, meaning i am a dictionary definition feminist and MRA. but both are very skewed and specific, but i would say MRAs tend to have actual data to back up their claims (custody issues, draft, circumcision, alimony, paternity leave etc) and feminist groups seem to always fall back on patriarchy.
PZ i realize you likly dont have the time to read through all the comments, but i have read through many sources and have been trying to show them to the commenters but they are basically ignored and instead i am insulted.
(note you now seem to be on the bandwagon and insulting me rather than addressing my points)
can you point out where my conclusions are wrong?
Oddly, I’m insulted by the idea that women may reasonably be expected, as a matter of course, to “choose” lower-paid work. I’m insulted by the insinuation that I’m silly enough not to spot the obvious flaw in the argument, and insulted by the insinuation that women are silly enough to make that choice.
But hey, at least david was polite about it.
Sorry, we have seen the statistics you don’t cite. You know, the ones that refute your sorry ass. Your inane opinion matches one we have seen and refuted a hundred times already. This has been a steady argument since elevatorgate. You aren’t going to be believed unless you provide the third party evidence to verify your claims to our, not your, satisfaction.
Your word alone won’t do anything other than make us laugh at you.
Still, it is insulting politeness, so down the drain you go, davidmcdevitt. *floosh*
Having my intelligence insulted is not how I want to spend a Sunday afternoon. Maybe I’ll get some manly work done around the house, thanks to my penis-having propensity for doing such things.
Sorry, assbackwards. You are wrong until you evidence yourself right. You haven’t done that. That is how science works. Consider your idea wrong, then supply the evidence to show you are right.
When someone says “show where I am wrong”, they are presupposing the argument, not looking at evidence.
well since this has devolved into nothing but ignoring the links i already provided and the explanations i gave and the follow up sources i gave to show they are not so clear, while consistently insulting me now for imagined accusations (never said women are so stupid so they take low paying jobs) i am going to take my leave of this site and its comment section, as you all have shown the caliber of people that frequent it.
but i will leave a message, never once have i given any indication i am anti woman. i am very pro woman i just disagree with the feminist interpretation of events and data. i enthusiastically support women moving more into STEM feilds and furthering our understanding of the world. and if we are ever going to have that happen we need to work together for change. but rather than explore why these issues occur you all seem happy to scream patriarchy (ie men and WOMEN that are in charge of hiring and payment are somehow our to undercut women).
same goes with rape and sexual assult, instead of understanding the legal requirements you all shout patriarchy (ie there is an active effort to allow and encourage rape and sexual assault among women) even when all stats that i provided do not indicate that conclusion.
this kind of in fighting and wild conspiracy talk are part of the reason why you folks scare away more and more allies.
sorry PZ if you were actively responding, but it is pointless to talk to these people at this point, they only hear what they want to hear.
davidmcdevitt:
Commenting on the grammar and spelling of others is sometimes a distraction. In this case, there is a point to mentioning your poor spelling and grammar: you are part of a conversation. You’re trying to communicate your thoughts and ideas to others. To make this process smoother, you ought to put some effort into proper spelling and grammar, so that people can understand what you’re saying better. Communication is often fraught with problems, whether from the speaker or the listener. It behooves us to attempt to minimize the potential for misunderstandings. Proper spelling and grammar is one way to do that.
And you gave the answer I suspected: you’re not informed enough to have this discussion. Your understanding of sexism and misogyny in society is poor. You don’t even have a 101 level of understanding.
Also, since you haven’t figured it out, the #yesallwomen campaign is not accusing all men of doing something wrong, nor treating all men as prospective rapists. *I* am a man. *I* don’t feel accused. Why? Because I don’t sexually harass women, and I don’t rape women. The only people that this targets are the men who do sexually harass and rape women.
As for sexual harassment, that is not something *you*, as a man get to define. Yes, there are a broad range of activities that constitute sexual harassment, and if you don’t want to be accused of sexually harassing women, you ought to familiarize yourself with those activities. But claiming that all women don’t face sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape is denying reality. This is a worldwide problem that women face every single day. Sexism permeates our society, and we’re indoctrinated from a young age in harmful sexist & misogynistic beliefs.
If you’re truly interested in understanding the breadth of the problem, I hope you’ll do some research. Right now you come across as an ignorant fool speaking about things he doesn’t understand and hasn’t taken the time to understand. Or an MRA. Either way speaks ill of you. Be a better person.
davidmcdevitt:
You may as well not respond to anything I say, bc even though I haven’t insulted you (much), you are quite deserving of insults and rest assured I’m quite likely to engage in more than a few quite soon.
davidmcdevitt
bye-bye
with allies like you we dont need enemies
davidmcdevitt:
That’s part of the problem. Sexism is everywhere. It permeates society.
Sexism is present in our social interactions (men holding the door for women or opening the car door for women are examples of benevolent sexism).
Sexism is present in the travel industry (which often produces magazines that objectify women rather than treating them as human beings).
Sexism is present in politics (as evidenced by the incredibly small number of female politicians relative to males).
Sexism is present in our social conversations (men speaking over women where they wouldn’t do the same to men; see also: mansplaining).
Sexism is present in video games (see Anita Sarkeesian’s wonderful series on the subject).
Sexism is present in the movie industry (how many movie announcers have been female; how many movies in 2013 had a woman in the lead role versus men).
Sexism is present in the toy industry (pink is for girls, blue is for boys; marketing Barbie to girls and action figures to boys).
Sexism is present in the armed forces (the Navy *just* named their first female four star admiral).
There are countless examples. I literally could spend all day giving you examples of sexism. Please note that I anticipate that you won’t understand how these cases are all examples of sexism and that’s part of the problem having a discussion with you. You don’t have a proper understanding of the basics. It’s like me trying to have a conversation with someone about calculus when my highest level of math understanding is algebra. That actually describes me. I don’t “get” math beyond algebra. So I really shouldn’t try talking about calculus. I don’t understand it. If I wanted to have a discussion with someone about it, it would behoove me to learn more. If you really want to be part of this discussion, take PZ’s advice and check out the sidebar. There are numerous links to sites that could help you understand just how pervasive sexism is. Until then, your level of understanding is incredibly poor and you’ve nothing to offer that hasn’t been seen and refuted a thousand times in the past.
You actually claim the mantle of MRA.
I can’t believe I even tried with you.
FUCK OFF.
Daz:
Yup. As we all know, when talking about social justice issues, it is imperative that we discuss the continued denial of oppressed peoples’ rights in the most civil way possible.
198 davidmcdevitt
It was not 100 years ago when women even hadn’t full voting rights. Then thousands of years of women being literally the property of men, and then after less then a couple of generations in a period of less then 100 years of more or less equality in the eyes of the law, and the null hypothesis should be there is full equality? You are a moron.
We can still read your comments, you know.
And the fact that the default of society still is that it is the woman who gets the role of caregiver? No sexism at all? You are pathetic.
You are a joke.
That’s why I hate egalitarians like you: if the law is equal, than everything is hunky dory. Forget the thousands of years of inequality, they cannot possibly have any influence on society. Did I mentuion you are an idiot?
Yeah, we should stay polite, in the face of crap like this. Some days, I just wanna puke.
(The Daz mentioned is some other Daz, by the way. ‘squite a common nickname in Blighty.)
Daz:
Thanks for the link to that. Oh boy those responses (especially by the other ‘Daz’) are horrible.
Tony (#239)
Well, he seems to think he’s claiming it in the same way that he’s claiming to be a feminists: being for “equal rights” (and nothing more). Yet, his understanding of feminism and existing institutions of inequality is clearly built entirely around erroneous MRA propaganda (ie. the only kind they have).
He’s taking pride in being some kind of fence-straddling centrist when a) he’s actually nothing of the sort, but he’s too dumb to know that; b) MRAs aren’t in any way advocates for equal rights, no matter what they pretend, so they aren’t some kind of male-focused complement to feminists; and c) fence-straddling (even if one frames it as not allowing oneself to be “polarized” or whatever) is almost never something to be proud of to begin with. So, while on the one hand he has no idea what being an MRA actually means, he very much is one.
Watch, he’ll defend himself by just reiterating how he’s an egalitarian, not just an MRA. And that he’s looking out for “both sides” but not entirely convinced by either.
MRAs have data to back up their positions and feminists don’t? Wut? Is this bizarro world?
One where you are afraid to look at the evidence the other side has.
Egalitarians should be for equal results for everybody. Until that happens, and until they work for it, they aren’t egalitarians no matter what they claim. But they usually want the appearance of equal rights, while doing everything they can to oppress those of the wrong sex, wrong color, etc.
@davidmcdevitt, 200
So… the 4-6% that remains after the other possible factors have been removed is due to other possible factors? Yeah, seems legit. (SARCASM)
221
But that’s precisely why it was met with such an aggressive response. How else should we respond to a fear mongering victim complex? Since nobody has claimed that all men are rapists or harrassers or discriminatory employers, why would anyone counter that with #notallmen unless they were trying to make people believe that feminist were claiming it? That’s the very definition of a fear mongering victim complex.
Btw, the #yesallwomen campaign is actually a response to #notallmen. Not surprised you got this backward though, given your track record in this thread.
228
HAH!
Fun fact, that 4-6% wage gap that remains after all other possible causes are removed, but which is somehow still caused by other possible causes? That’s from at least one study that’s often cited by MRAs as evidence that the wage gap doesn’t exist at all. So… yeah, maybe they have actual data, but it doesn’t back up their claims, and they clearly don’t bother reading it. Which makes you wonder why any of them bother pretending to be skeptics. Well, it makes me wonder that anyway, it might not make you wonder it.
234
Yes, yes, and creationists aren’t anti-science, they’re very pro-science, they just disagree with the “Darwinist” interpretation of events and data.
Nope and nope. Nope that we’re just screaming patriarchy, and nope that patriarchy means they’re twirling their moustaches or fake moustaches, asking themselves how they might hold women down this week as you are quite clearly assuming (do I win a prize for accurately predicting his misunderstanding earlier? I understand Randi pays quite well for such feat of clairvoyance?).
Nope, nope and nope. Nope that we’re just screaming patriarchy, nope that patriarchy means “They” are twirling their moustaches, asking how they might promote the rape of women this week, and nope that your stats indicate anything contrary to our actual position.
Enjoy your flounce. If you come back, try being reasonable. Try addressing the issues, rather than what you lazily assume to be the issues, and don’t pretend that being dismissed as irrational for your windmill tilting is being insulted – it ain’t.
Ok, slightly less “insulting” ending section: You do not understand feminism. You do not understand what feminists are saying. Because of this, and perhaps solely because of this, your arguments fail. Research can help you. Learn what feminists are actually saying. Learn to understand feminism. If you persist in attacking strawmen, your arguments will continue to fail and make you seem far more foolish than you may actually be.
If our position is truly as far from reality as you believe, there can be no harm in educating yourself about it before you attempt to tear it down. It may even help your cause.
There was once a man called Sun Tzu who said something pertinent to this:
Consider those words.
— (No longer responding to anyone in particular) —
About a year ago, I was talking to a Real Skeptic. We were talking about discrimination in society. I mentioned the discrimination that people of colour deal with. I mentioned the discrimination that gays and lesbians deal with. I mentioned the discrimination that foreigners deal with. I mentioned the discrimination that women deal with. He interrupted me: “Woah woah woah! We can’t just take it as axiomatic that women are discriminated against!”
Apparently he had no problem with taking it as axiomatic that any of those other groups were discriminated against, which I find odd, because I take it as demonstrated, and have no need of merely assuming it as an axiom, but it’s interesting how people will happily just assume a thing to be true until they encounter a case where it offends them to consider it so, isn’t it?
@Nerd of Redhead, 246
Nah, egalitarianism is all about giving people equal choices at the start, and then not giving a shit if some people equally choose to enslave the rest and poke them with great bit pokey things.
The tribalism shown in these comments is just staggering.
The banality of your comment is boring.
Almost everytime an idiot comes in here braying about “tribalism” or whatever Bad Collectivist Word of The Month, they go scrambling back to their little Anti-Feminist or Anti-Pharyngula corner of the internet to get fed an internet cookie.
I’ve never been staggered by OurTribalism©.
I find it endearing.
Ain’t it?
The Pharyngula is our home.
The Pharyngula is our family.
The Pharyngula is our only hope against the Others!!!!!one!
Just came across this article via skepchicks. It’s from the Economist, so I don’t think anyone can claim a feminist bias on that. It’s all about the handling of rape kits.
I’d like davidmcdevitt to read that and try pretending that a change in policy won’t fix anything.
Jonny Johnson:
Assuming for a second that you’re correct, and this comment thread demonstrates tribalism, the fact that
• multiple people have a strong loyalty to this place and/or one another,
• multiple people agree on the subject at hand
and
• multiple people respond to criticism in much the same manner
does not invalidate their arguments.
Don’t try to use tribalism to dismiss the arguments.
anteprepro:
I have this image of a gaggle of Cookie Monsters gathering around patting each other on the back for a job well done in the eternal battle against the Ebil feminazis. I wonder what kind of cookies these fools eat?
****
Athywren:
I thought we advanced a few levels to ELEBENTY!!11!!
What I find amusing the MRA/PUA fuckwits calling what we do here “tribalism”. Look in the mirror fuckwits, as you are a member of a bad/renegade tribe, before you make any such comment. You don’t tolerate those who try to show you the evidence that you behavior is bad. You have no evidence for your claims, just your opinion of the evidence, and that, plus a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald’s. It gets you nothing here.
To those accusing Jaclynglenn of using a strawman: do you really expect a parody to be perfectly representative and even-handed? Name me every parody that could not be accused of using strawmen by apologists. They are not meant to evaluate the positions a side actually holds, they exaggerate to re-contextualize certain things such as to draw out perspectives about them.
Regardless of how strong or well-expressed Jaclyn’s points are I find them relevant. I don’t generally side with Jaclyn on feminism, but feminists do emphasize discrimination against women. However, every contribution to that effect may have parallels with diverse ramifications across the culture. In other words, changing perceptions and attitudes relating to gender may not be sufficient to counter the underlying root causes of the countered behavior. Nor may such superficial solutions necessarily maximize progress. So, she has a point in emphasizing equality. Feminism may not be by definition in opposition to that position, but Jaclyn isn’t pretending to criticize all feminists. Other elements of her video attack tactics and attitudes of supporters of A+. There is evidence in this thread that attitudes towards someone’s position are shaped in part by association. Her bit about the A+ advocate explicitly requiring that everyone agree with every word she says may not be subtle, but it is valid if the perceptions of A+ pretentiousness are valid. Otherwise she generally channels a version of A+, which as you know, is based on her extensive knowledge of the secret art of mirroring which trained her to perfectly capture the essence of every act of support for A+.
As to the insults and such: does anyone expect that their opponents will see the light and only return with their spelling and grammar corrected, and in acknowledgment of such obvious virtues? Or does such so called criticism simply act to reinforce beliefs that might otherwise appear vulnerable? Specifically these insults and many other similar comments purport to contain much more information than is provided by the language. “You’re an idiot” claims significant information about the person, but the language only contrasts them as an idiot as opposed to a non-idiot. I wish I knew of a term for this tactic. Such claims are barely available to refutation by logic or evidence. To attempt to in turn support your position is to play a game by which you are easily subject to the motives behind shifting perspectives. Why, it’s almost as if such phrasing is used to make it practically immune to criticism.
Onto the “Hivemind”. It may not be the most effective description, but I’m sure you won’t be surprised to know I can perceive where it comes from. In general there is a common attitude that it is as if all social problems could be solved if only the stupid bigots would submit to the preordained intellectual authority. It would be entirely consistent to expect that related opinions are driven by and evolve through perceptions of authority so as to create a bubble. That would explain why there are such frequent displays here of intimidation and entitlement. Such motivated reasoning may not be unique to A+, but the more prevalent it is the more suspicious I’ll be of a cause.
103
I have to make a couple of points about your claim about atheism. You want to claim it means nothing more than that there is no god, right? Then 1) where did this idea come from? Is there no history or epistemology of atheism? Are all atheists just automata who had this idea pop into their head, contrary to the dominant ideas in their cultures?
Why should there be a common history or epistemology of atheism? Someone could independently arrive at atheism without exposure to atheistic ideas, unlike any particular religion. Now sure there may be tendencies and patterns among the processes that lead to atheism, but there is no definition supporting a distinction by which atheism is anything but the rejection of a common idea. I’d venture to say my reasons for being atheist are as different from yours as either of ours are from the theist position.
And 2) atheists just stop there? There is no god, but this has no consequences or meaning, it’s just a fact about the universe with no implications whatsoever. Remarkably incurious creatures, these atheists. They have come up with an axiom, but they draw no conclusions from their premise at all. It just is, a fact, but an irrelevant fact, floating in a universe in which believing the opposite, that there is a god, has profound effects on people’s behavior.
How do atheistic behavior, attitudes, and beliefs derive from a negative belief? There are no consequences from atheism; there are consequences from belief systems that happen to exclude the theist position. Being bound by the word atheist can forever leave you in the theist orbit. It’s as if we were in the 19th century and certain indigenous people in a colony want to talk about the consequences of being “primitive pagans”. They want to inform everyone of how their culture and other cultures around the world are shaped by the nature of primitive paganism. Many of them might become blinded to the origins and implications of the words primitive and pagan.
Please show me how A+ values derive simply from the lack of a belief in god.
3) Further, when some atheists say hey, wait a minute, atheism is an important idea and we ought to use it to correct the harm done by religion by promoting constructive social improvements, other atheists get terribly upset and try to dehumanize the social progressive wing of atheism by calling them “retards” and insisting that it is an abuse of atheism to actually try to do anything good under the atheist banner. Atheists seem to think that extending atheism to include belittling efforts to better humanity is just fine, but actually working towards equality (remember, there is no Chosen People, nor are particular individuals blessed by god) is anathema.
First, social justice issues do not derive necessarily from atheism. If someone opposes some aspect of the A+ platform I may not agree, but I’ll still hear them out equally on any issue relating to atheism. If you don’t want to, fine, but there is no need to frame the issues about atheism in terms of agreement with A+ principles, unless you want to turn atheism into something it is not. There are many comments to suggest you do.
Second, A+ can be opposed because of the way it is promoted and attitudes its supporters display. It shouldn’t be as if some position is so obviously right that an entire agenda deserves to be unquestionable. It is counterproductive when some people react as if opposition is support for everything A+ opposes.
Finally the name of and support for A+ demand it receive center stage. Anyone who prefers atheism be about issues relating to a lack of religion, are grouped as being on the other team.
4) These same irate atheist purists then regard any subgroup that goes off on their own to endorse humanist causes to be personally offensive, a direct attack on their views. They must be silenced. They must be howled down by people like Bryan and Jaclyn. Why? Because they are victimizing atheist purists, and therefore they are all professional victims (don’t ask me to explain the logic there — there is none). Their very existence demonizes Jaclyn Glenn! Anyone who disagrees with Jaclyn must belong to a hive mind (again, I cannot explain this)!
Yes, any other group, which is why you hear all the backlash against Skepticism and Humanism.
Oy, Jack Stone, I’m really tired of idjits popping in and telling me I’m imposing one view of atheism on every one. You don’t have a clue. You haven’t read what I wrote, you haven’t even thought very deeply about it. Go here and read that, and shut the fuck up until you do.
I’m also getting really pissed off at clueless morons who whine about atheism+. You don’t like it, don’t join it. The existence of other people who care about social justice issues while you don’t give a good goddamn does not impose on you any obligation. It’s amazing how much grief self-centered people who hate the idea that someone might decide their atheism leads to a necessary concern for other people can cause — I think it’s guilt. You’re reminded by people who are trying to be better human beings that you’re an asshole who doesn’t care.
So why the fuck are you concerned about all the things you’re whining about, numpty?
Actually they do in my case. Throwing out the religious based bigotry was the start. Why are you so against social justice is the real question? Otherwise, you would ignore the issue. But is must scare the shit out of you somehow….
And those attitudes would be what? Unless you describe them, all you have is usupported idiocy. Why worry about it, unless, perchance, you are an MRA/PUA loudmouth protecting you fee-fees from being shown to be sexist.
How can you become atheist, and not have it affect anything else in your life? That would be like getting a divorce, but not moving out, moving on or telling anybody.
Seriously, when I realized that I was seriously atheist, I had to re-evaluate everything that I knew. I had to decide how to feel about my mom being wrong about Jesus, and how to handle the fact that she now thought I was hell-worthy. I had to remember who had told me everything that I knew, and to re-test everything that I had been told by Christians. Nothing was sacred, now, and nothing was sure.
So much of what we do, and what we think that we know, in this country and society, is either based directly on Christian traditions, or is based on things valued by Christians. Seriously, if you want to clear Christianity and Christian-supported and majority-Christian out of your life, you have to not only stop going to church, you have to drop sports, guns, Republicans and a lot of attitudes.
Discrimination against women is in the scriptures. An atheist who follows Paul’s edicts is not an atheist.
Lol PZ Myers @259.
You actually seem to have entirely missed my point. As to your link: exactly, there are antecedents. Our antecedents shape everything we could possibly talk about. I do not underestimate or undervalue them. Will you tell me though that we will only obtain access to our belief systems because other people believe in god? Do we owe a debt of gratitude to religions because only with them could we have arrived at where we are? If not, then using “atheism” to frame everything is a misnomer. I in particular, identify my own philosophy independently as including rejection of religions (or other religions?) as a culturally relevant but rationally marginal distinction.
That’s convenient, all opposition consists of selfish, guilt ridden, ignorant, assholes. Never mind that I agree with you on social issues. Did it ever occur to you that I may have arrived at similar values by a different approach and oppose A+ for the atmosphere it is in part responsible for poisoning?
@260
Because I believe we have rights based on the realities that persistently affect us and the qualities that make us human.
@261
You couldn’t have continued to believe in religious bigotry while becoming atheist? Or did you replace values in the process? Where those values derived from rejection of religion or are they independent?
Why should I ignore the issue because I agree with you on social issues? I think people are being mistreated. In particular A+ has the potential to gain power by being well positioned to capitalize on perception it is progressive on social causes.
I described those attitudes in #257. I also said elsewhere:
“All the other posts that position A+ such as to define atheism and its issues. All the comments that suggest all opposition to A+ is motivated by everything A+ stands against. The claims that anti-A+ers are lacking in the essentials related to being a complete and balanced atheist.”
I worry about it because I care that I have confronted such attitudes, and care that others will be affected by them. Explain to me why your perception of people being mistreated by social issues is more important than my concerns.
@262
It may just be me but concluding god didn’t exist only undermined my attempt to prove his existence. I lost nothing intellectually with that because I found my philosophy still on solid ground (I had never based anything on god). I was a moral relativist at the time, but that wasn’t a change. If you defy god why are you objectively wrong? Monotheistic religions merely define god as all-good which explains nothing.
Jaclyn creates an empire of straw in a parody, but @259 is an impartial evaluation.
That vague handwaving has absolutely no connection to your whines about Atheism+, or about linking atheism and social justice, whichare the whines that I referred to, numpty.
Jack Stone doesn’t define atheism except for himself. What an arrogant asshole. A scared and arrogant asshole.
You clearly didn’t read the post I linked to for comprehension.
Atheism+ doesn’t poison anything: it’s a group of people who have publicly announced their personal priorities and are pursuing them, without demanding that Jack Stone participate. Meanwhile, if you must know what is poisoning the atmosphere, it’s loud, dishonest, sexist assholes who believe they have a right to harass anyone who disagrees with them.
To people like Jack Stone, A+ “poisons the atmosphere” merely be existing. He’d rather the women and others just keep quiet in the back like good little ornaments.
If knowing we’re on the Internet is making anyone that uncomfortable, maybe we should set up a custom package of filters for NetNanny, so their delicate natures won’t be so savaged by the presence of empathy. It’d be the compassionate thing to do for the poor dears. Wouldn’t that be nice for you, Jack? We could make all the nasty feminists go away, and you’d be safe to cuddle your well-thumbed dictionary and pretend it’s still the days when only Actual People (you know, the kind with penes) could vote. Ah, the good old days, when men were men and women fearfully silent.
this is a twisted way of looking at history.
do we owe a debt of gratitude to Nazis because without them we wouldn’t be aware of the dangers of facism?
hell no.
we owe the debt of gratitude to the people who fought against it, who saw firsthand the damage rampant authoritarianism can cause, and reacted to it.
likewise, we owe nothing to religion. but rather to those throughout history who risked life and liberty to point out the dangers and misinformation inherent to religion.
you’ve got it exactly ass backwards, fuckwit.
#2 had the gist of Jaclyn’s video…
yup. add superficial to that as well.
funny, but all I have ever seen from anti A+ers is them viciously attacking strawmen of what A+ stands FOR.
all you’re doing is projecting that back and claiming to be the victim.
wow.
Thought experiment for the Anti-Atheist Plus Brigade:
Are you familiar with the facile argument against atheists used by theists, wondering why they care about religion?
“So you don’t believe in God. Why define yourself by that? Why do you care? I don’t believe in unicorns and I don’t call myself an “a-unicornist”. I don’t go around trying to debunk people who believe in unicorns and spending my life obsessed with how there are no unicorns”
So imagine a society where 95% of people believe in unicorns. Imagine a society where half of the political system is comprised of people who are very, very serious about unicorns. People who insist that unicorns are what make them interested in horseback riding, horse care, hairstyling, drawing rainbows, opposing anything “un-natural”, using horns as weapons, pre-emptive war, vegetarianism, prohibitionism for alcohol and cigarettes but support for marijuana and LSD, and maybe also toss in large and vocal support for furry costumes and fan fiction. Assume there is another political party that also likes unicorns, but are less hardcore fans, and are also less supportive of all of the above, but some of do support bits and pieces of it to varying degrees.
Now imagine that you are in that society and you do not believe in unicorns at all. If you are a dictionary a-unicornist, that has no implications at all, supposedly. You are just as likely to care about all the myriad of things associated with hardcore unicorn enthusiasm, despite rejecting the central premise of unicornism. Entirely possible. But isn’t it more likely that you would tend to deviate? That you would tend to not care about horses as much? That you would not have the same nature fetish?
Often Christians like to point to “good atheists” and say that they have just hijacked Christian morals. They claim atheists are cultural Christians, rejecting the basic idea of Christianity will still swimming in a cultural shaped by it and still adopting premises and ideas that flow from it. A dictionary atheist, an atheist for which their atheism has no implications beyond not believing in a God, would be exactly the example those apologists were looking for.
I tend to think that atheism has implications. It is just not clear what those implications are, as PZ said. Atheists tend to be more left-leaning. If they are right-wing, they tend to libertarian, objectivist, capitalism worshippers and such. They tend not to adopt “social conservatism” ideas. If they are left-wing, it is largely because of how well the left-wing aligns with secularism. Atheists have more issues socially because they have to deal with stigma and don’t have church as a helpful connection like believers do.
See here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2012/05/atheism-a-personality-profile/
Atheists tend to be pragmatic, systematic, and individualistic. (Also see the abstract here for confirmation with the terms “logical, skeptical, and non-comformist”. )
And of course, you can’t be ignorant of what came before the atheism. Look at the demographics: http://atheistscholar.org/AtheistPsychologies/AtheistDemographics.aspx
Most atheists are young-ish, white, male, more educated, higher income, and supposedly have less guilt about sex.
If you think that atheism is just atheism and there is nothing more to it, you are ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Atheism does come with baggage. And that is largely because of what you need to do and need to be in order to become non-religious in a country or even in a world where religion is “normal”. Ignore that or deny that at your own peril.
@265
You led me to believe you thought I had no potential moral foundation for criticism. Anyway, the connection remains that I think condemnation of people for their beliefs and associations are wrong. Linking atheism to social justice can be a match of convenience. What intrinsic relationship is there (as implied by PZ)?
@266
I don’t define for anyone other than myself because I don’t know what we have in common. Why shouldn’t there be as much diversity within atheism as between atheists and theists? I was merely asking you questions, because I don’t understand how anyone is defined by the theist position if they reject it.
@267
I don’t comprehend because I don’t agree. Got it.
Actions speak louder than words. You don’t require I participate, but create the impression you represent me (because you represent true atheism). I can anticipate you will affect me and others. You use A+ in part as justification for criticism.
Meanwhile, the authoritarian and defensive deflection of criticism through constant and random insults does nothing to poison the atmosphere.
@268 & @269
As if that follows from what I’ve said. I don’t even generally agree with the anti-feminists. Meanwhile a culture with your pattern behavior wouldn’t have these problems because when you hold others down you don’t make unjustified assumptions about them.
@270
If we admire people for standing up to injustice, why are our positions then defined by them? Am I required to say “under god” in the pledge because the US helped defeat the Nazis?
@273
I’m not denying your point. Why isn’t it fair to say I can be an atheist and also have my own worldview? They are related but independent facts.
Jack Stone, try something new. It is called shutting the fuck up and listening. You don’t talk, think about rebuttals, or anything other than concentrating on what the other person is saying.
Again, you don’t like A+, you don’t join A+. What the fuck is your problem? Oh, that’s right, women aren’t your equal in your mind.
Oh, and stupid ignorant Jack Stone, you blockquote like this:
<blockquote>material to be quoted</blockquote>
comes out like this:
Makes your drivel easier to read.
How could I possibly argue with that?
By trying to get in the last word.
Of course, who doesn’t want to score some extra points? :P
Extra bullying points? Assertive, have your say, which you did within your first ten posts. Aggressive and bullying, maintain a presence until you are agreed with. You don’t have to agree with me, I don’t give a shit about what you think. But until you cease posting, you are attempting to intimidate us to accept your ideas.
I’m sorry.
PZ, time to shut down this thread.
PZ Myrs, y’r vry ngry bt cmdy vd, nd y’r vry ngry bt thr ppl’s pnns n th ntrnt. Myb try yg r smthng?
You’re very angry about PZ Myers. So take your own advise, and try yoga or something. Commenting on a smart blog isn’t your forte, as your post wasn’t meeting the basic requirements….
Gee, the “it was a joke” excuse. Haven’t heard that for almost ten minutes.
Cleanup @ aisle 283 please. We have a whole lot of shit on the floor from a new fuckfaced fool. Probably a pitter.
Jacklyn Glenn is an apologist for sexism and misogyny. Supporting those who deny half the population of the planet their basic human rights *ought* to be something people get angry over you damn pissant.
pzmyersisatool,
Your name choice worries me. It indicates you might be a tad upset at PZ. How about trying some relaxing activity, like solving a puzzle or watching a documentary about birds?
Says the guy who resurrected a 2 month old thread and named himself pzmyersisatool just so he could express his displeasure about PZ Myers opinions about other peoples opinions.
“pzmyersisatool”?
Ah, the dazzling, subtle wit. A student of Oscar Wilde, no doubt.
The only thing worse than being pzmyersisatool is… umm… drawing a blank. Maybe nothing is worse?
Well the atheist community doesn’t have to bother boycotting one of its own, the Christians have us covered. A ‘powerful’ Christian youth ministry is calling for a worldwide boycott of Jaclyn Glenn and they challenged her to a debate.
http://youtu.be/WLumfMd4LSI