I don’t want to be part of a movement that includes racists, sexists, and shitlords, which makes being part of atheism problematic right now. Philip Rose feels likewise, and has a proposal: Atheism Minus.
He’s introducing the idea on YouTube, which might be a mistake — already, the shitlords are flocking to attack it, and the comments are a horror show of the usual dorks with their revisionist history and dogmatic denial of the importance of social justice causes to a social movement. They just want their privileges extended. I’m not in total agreement with everything Philip says, but goddamn, his shallow, stupid, asshole critics are repellent.
However, I am going to pluck out one of their comments as a relevant example of all that is wrong with these nitwits.
The community went south precisely when the feminism/SJW nonsense [dogmatic rejection of feminism noted. I don’t want to associate with anyone who thinks equality of women and minorities is
nonsense] got injected into it [Incorrect. There were feminists and anti-feminists in it all along. What happened is that the anti-SJWs rejected some of us rather vehemently (remember, “guys, don’t do that”? That triggered a mob) with harassment campaigns]. It was obvious to a great number that it was some kind of social shaming cult [You know, that happens when you have standards for ethical behavior. People who don’t meet some minimal expectations of civil social interaction get shamed. Do you really think /pol is a great finishing school for young gentlemen?] , so we walked away from it [Lie. You did not. Instead, you babbled a lot of dogmatic bullshit about how atheism isn’t allowed to have any moral expectations, and hounded women out of the movement. I wish you’d just left.] – and, as expected, we got ‘shamed’ by the group for not agreeing 110% with their superficially worthy, yet significantly flawed causes [flawed…how? Just the mention of feminism causes a knee-jerk response from you guys —FEMINISM IS CANCER. You can’t make a coherent critique.]. Philip attempted to turn the + of added social justice to a – of added social justice in a rather clumsy bait and switch that won’t fool those of us that rejected it the first time. [Then reject it. Walk away. Just fuck off, you regressive turds.]Just because we’re agagainst the intersectional SJW nonsense [Social Justice: The concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges. Intersectionality: the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage. You object? Why?], doesn’t mean we hate women or folks of other ethnicities [Actually, it means you regard the goals of those groups as irrelevant and unimportant. Equal pay and fair treatment under the law for others are less important to you than that white men might have to back up their entitlement with responsibility] – it’s the inevitable victimhood cult and anti white male rhetoric that does that…. [And there it is: the big problem in society is that white men might get called mean names. A black man might fear getting shot by the police, a woman might fear getting raped or passed over for promotion, but the great American crisis is that white men are being told that they benefit from injustice.]
Let the shitlords rage. They dominate the discourse in areas of social media where they’re allowed to be totally anonymous and spew crap without any accountability, like YouTube, but out here in reality the major atheist organizations all recognize that that nihilistic, movement-without-meaning attitude doesn’t work, and as Philip points out, you can’t fight for the rights of an atheist minority while denying the rights of far more oppressed groups.
I do have one objection to the idea of Atheism Minus. The onus shouldn’t be on civil, normal, healthy members of a community to separate themselves from the rotten apples. We should recognize that Atheism Plus or Atheism Minus or whatever we call it isn’t the weird subset — it’s the standard. We need to just reclaim the title of Atheism as our own.
Out of curiosity, how does this crowd regard strongly progressive religious leaders? Recently I’ve been following the blog of John Pavlovitz. https://johnpavlovitz.com/ He’s a pastor, or some kind of church leadership guy (I haven’t really looked into that because I’m not interested in the religious bits) who speaks incredibly passionately about social justice, and particularly against the regressive Right, Trumpists, and corrupted, idolatrous national Christianity (his sentiments).
A necessary consequence of atheism to me is a rejection of the injustice that religions are currently used to justify. But that social justice is far more important to me than the trivia of the existence of deities (obviously they don’t exist, but what good is it to know that if there’s no consequence?); I’d be mostly happy if his brand of soft religion knocked toxic Christianity off its pedestal, even if all the squishy jesusy bits were included.
Is this the kind of person that the rest of yall would regard as an ally?
Yes. I’d still argue with him on the gods nonsense, but sure, we should prioritize and work together on specific secular causes.
The “liberation of minorities is anti-white man” take always amuses me because it’s an implicit admission white men have been profiting from the oppression of minorities.
You know, once upon a time, I used to joke that these guys watched too many cartoons as children and didn’t realise that Skeletor and Cobra Commander were not meant to be role models. Then I re-watched a few episodes of those cartoons, and had the horrifying realisation that both of those notables, despite being “evil” villains determined to conquer the world, were entirely better and more socially responsible people than the asswaffle hordes, and would probably refuse to even employ any of them on ethical grounds.
Atheism Minus was proposed on a previous thread as a pejorative against alt-right atheism:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2017/09/30/mythcon-was-as-expected-crapola/
Heh, I’m sure you’ve seen the meme of Joker punching out Red Skull – “Wait, you’re a Nazi? A REAL, not-metaphor NAZI? BAM! I may be a criminal sociopath but I’m an AMERICAN criminal sociopath!”
http://www.littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/criminalshatefacists/batmancap.jpg Found the image. Was a bit off, but close.
@HappyHead: To go along with your examples, apparently there is a Superman story where Lex Luthor becomes president of the US and he sells off his company before taking office. Even cartoon villains understand conflicts of interests, it seems.
Of course, what they forget* is the reason the “feminism/SJW nonsense” was injected in the first place.
In the early 2000’s, atheist/ skeptic groups had looked around and noticed they were almost strictly comprised of nothing but white men. They actively went looking to see how they could draw in more women, PoC, and others because they were interested in, you know, lasting and growing. However, as the quoted statement above shows, the old boy’s club mentality had set in as well, and when those women, PoC, and other showed up, some of the old guard were disappointed to find things couldn’t proceed as usual, that they would have to make accommodations if they wanted to keep their newfound members around. I mean, many of those accommodations were things the atheist/ skeptic groups were already promising in order to entice them in to begin with, but some reacted as if the women, PoC, and others were just rude, unfair, and obnoxious for expecting them to live up to those promises.
* Or intentionally leave out. That’s assuming this individual even knows this at all since they could just be a 14 year old kid whose only “knowledge” of this comes from watching shitty videos from the likes of Sargon or TJ Kirk.
The atheism minus thing seems a little misguided, for several reasons.
1. Atheism minus sounds like it’s supposed to be opposed to atheism plus. Some people have already used it to mean that.
2. In the video he mischaracterizes atheism plus as not allowing “questioning of SJW ideology”. The reason he believes this is because of an extended smear campaign, and I don’t think he realizes that atheism minus will be subject to exactly the same attacks.
3. As it is, people are already confused about the history of atheism plus. Atheism plus was a movement in 2012, and it failed to get off the ground. Feminist/SJ atheists are still around but never really united under atheism plus. Atheism plus lives on in sidebar banners and the occasional voice of support. It also lives on as a sneer word among anti-feminist atheists who don’t seem to understand that 2012 was a long time ago. This is the environment he has to work with, and he doesn’t seem prepared.
That said, he already made the video, so best of luck.
Exactly. The people who are opposed to these ideas don’t care what we call it. What they’re opposed to isn’t the name, but the idea of caring about anyone who isn’t them.
anti-sjw/feminism is about being against the movements, feminism is more than just an idea of equality, its a movement that not everyone agrees with what they are currently doing….. are you unaware of this or do you purposely build strawmen to attack? If you really disagree with what someone is saying you shouldn’t have to misrepresent it to attack it.
the Anti-white male rhetoric is far beyond just mean names, there’s a lot of hatred and suggestions that they deserve less due to a perceived notion that things must have been easier in life for them so people of different race and sex should be treated better. personally i’m a minority but the fact that this kind of behavior usually only gets called out by the people you hate is not a good thing.
They, of course, fail to notice how they are so often making claims about how they are always getting shamed. Oh, right…that’s because they’re being shamed by a “social shaming cult” and, therefore, they are legitimate victims, which makes it OK. Whereas, I suppose, the patriarchy and/or white male privilege is all made up (sorry, “nonsense”). That’s got to be the rationalization as to why they’re not hypocrites, right?
lol
mugato at #12 spends one paragraph complaining about straw-men and the next paragraph building one.
@12 mugato
I’ll get straight to the point: It’s not building a strawman if the opposition can’t make a coherent point. That’s their problem, not ours. Let’s look at your comment, for example. You say, “its a movement that not everyone agrees with what they are currently doing.” I hear that a lot, but you know what I almost never hear? Specifics. Or if I do hear specifics, the specifics then lack evidence or, hypocritically, are strawmen of feminists.
Where is your evidence, for example, that “there’s a lot of hatred and suggestions that they deserve less due to a perceived notion that things must have been easier in life for them so people of different race and sex should be treated better”??? That also looks like a strawman to me. “Do you purposely build strawmen to attack?” (I note that you say “perceived.” OK, well, are people perceiving a strawman? Then isn’t that their fault?) Or this could use further elaboration. What do you mean by “deserve less”? Does Donald Trump, for example, deserve less for being born into wealth and for being white, male, and, thus, privileged up the wazoo? Fork yes, he does! Do you seriously want to argue Donald Trump earned fair and square the wealth and status he has???
Also, what, specifically, are they saying they don’t agree with. You don’t get to claim we’re building strawmen and then fail to provide us the actual position. Essentially saying “they disagree with stuff” is not helpful!
@12 mugato
Being a white cis-male there is much I have been naive or oblivious to. People discussing such issues as privilege or trans rights and acceptance is not a personal affront. There is so much in the unspoken background that can be taken for granted or unacknowledged that being exposed to novel views can provoke a bit of reactive dissonance in some. Why?
I am reminded of the early 90s when a friend introduced me to Consolidated and I was all “WTF is this?” The content worked away at me and helped me appreciate people being quite different from me. Atheism+ is (was?) atheism with a Consolidated soundtrack in your earbuds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_(band)
And I am still amazed at how Elevatorgate caused such a blowup. It’s still reverberating as a shibboleth of where one stands.
I enjoy reading Rebecca’s blog. That’s my stance.
White guys seem to hear, “You have systemic privilege” as “You don’t have to do any work to earn your success”. It’s not the same thing.
Toby Morris’s comic “On a Plate” is a good example of systemic privilege of economic advantage.
http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate
I agree with Siggy at #10. I didn’t get into my disagreements with Philip at all, but that’s it — he seems to unconsciously accepted the asshole portrayal of Atheism+, rather than knowing anything about it. In a lot of ways, Atheism+ and Atheism- are pretty much the same thing, and the critics are going to notice that.
#12: What exactly are you disagreeing with? Feminism is a diverse movement that takes many different directions, but the fundamental core is that women are disadvantaged compared to men, and we need to work to even the playing field. Do you disagree with that? Or are you one of those phonies who plays games to argue that there is no wage gap, for instance, or that women aren’t under-represented in many fields? Because I’m not making straw men when I say there are assholes on YouTube who shriek “feminism is cancer” whenever a Milo-like jerk whistles.
@14: do you know what a strawman is? or do you deny people do this? im not trying to beat any argument with the 2nd paragraph other than the idea that being against the anti-white male rhetoric is a lot more than being against white males being called mean names, thats not a strawman
@15 how is it not coherent? i specifically asked if they were unaware that anti-feminism/sjw was about the movements and not people just saying they hate equality…. either they didnt know that or their “I don’t want to associate with anyone who thinks equality of women and minorities is nonsense” is a misrepresented proposition they are attacking (a strawman)
what i said wasnt a strawman (see my reply to #14), theres plenty of examples, off the top of my head i can mention companies like google actively trying to hire people of a certain sex because they dont feel there is enough of them (which they even said themselves it was because women werent interested, and this is on top of programs that favor training women and minorities for better positions). Sure donald trump for instance does, but too often he is seen as “the white male”, sure there are way more powerful white males, which is more of a problem of past racism helping them be in the position they are, (though people of that age would have had a better chance but thats not necessarily true these days and some would argue it may hurt now) but we have to remember most white males are just like us that dont have a magic race/sex card to make life easier.
Seriously? im suppose to just mention everything they dont agree with just because i mention that they dont agree with things and its not just sexism/racism? that sounds like a lot to ask, a normal person would just ask for an example instead of trying to say what i need to do. Well we have the classics like wage gap, rape culture(and all it entails, like “teach men not to rape”), and wanting to hire people based on sex/race, but theres also the everyday things like feeling we have to change established characters for diversity, the idea that media that caters to the “male fantasy” is bad and much more that I really dont feel like listing out especially when its pretty easy to find if you just stop cutting off ideas that are different so easily (yes yes i know a lot of them do it to), but i find it concerning that you really dont see them saying these kind of things, hopefully its not because you just spend too much time in echo chambers or something like that
I should also point out that Philip Rose is a white male. So am I. We don’t hate ourselves. We do hate how some men are poisoning the reputation of white men.
Speaking of Rebecca Watson I noticed she just posted something about Pinker’s Better Angels thesis that PZ might want to post about:
http://skepchick.org/2017/10/steven-pinker-wrong-violence/
The snark in this comment made me chuckle irreverently:
“The book was an immediate bestseller, especially among that group of people who love the idea of science if not the exact reality of how good science is done. He gave a TED talk about it, where those sorts of people gather.”
TED talks are OK, but they conjure the stock image of ‘person with headset prancing back and forth in front of dazzled audience oohing and awwing at spectacle.’ That image resonates with Watson’s funny comment above.
I think the key point here is that whatever you call it, the shitlords will reflexively begin slandering it. I’m not clever enough to fully exploit this, but smarter heads should come together and come up with a series of re-brandings, each designed purely to draw their fire.
Like I dunno, “Atheists against drowning helpless puppies.” Get ’em posting memes of drowning puppies emblematic of their derision. That sort of thing.
Perhaps we could brand ourselves as “atheists opposed to eating our own shit.” Then The Amazing Atheist, Thunderfoot, et al, can go on a Youtube rampage of coprophagy.
@hemidactylus @PZ Myers Curios Digressions im a minority (cis-male), @PZmeyers and i dont hate women or myself, i do hate how those few men are even able to poison the reputation of men in general, and i believe its unfair that its even more true depending on what race that man is
@hemidactylus i’ve always leaned left im just not a fan of where left went with this whole thing. and i missed the whole elevatorgate thing sadly lol (checked the band, not really my style)
@23-
I am starting to see how this reverse psychology angle could work.
And since the first amendment or other equivalent notions of free speech protects one who chooses to engage in coprophagy, it is not a merely moral should but an obligatory must that compels the coprophagic act.
Mugato, I refer you to Healey’s First Law Of Holes.
Ya know, I’m trying, but I really can’t see anything in mugato’s comments other than a lot of butthurt based in a deep refusal to understand what systemic privilege even is.
Mugato, my guy, my dude, my duderino, my dudely-doo, “white men” are not, and are not portrayed as, the enemy. But ones who refuse to acknowledge their privilege, and who choose to portray all social justice as undeserved payola when it is explicitly the REVERSE of that, those are the enemy. You may have noticed one of them in the mirror this morning.
Ya know, I’m trying, but I really can’t see anything in mugato’s comments other than a lot of butthurt based in a deep refusal to understand what systemic privilege even is.
Mugato, my guy, my dude, my duderino, my dudely-doo, “white men” are not, and are not portrayed as, the enemy. But ones who refuse to acknowledge their privilege, and who choose to portray all social justice as undeserved payola when it is explicitly the REVERSE of that, those are the enemy. You may have noticed one of them in the mirror this morning.
Ya know, I’m trying, but I really can’t see anything in mugato’s comments other than a lot of butthurt based in a deep refusal to understand what systemic privilege even is.
Mugato, my guy, my dude, my duderino, my dudely-doo, “white men” are not, and are not portrayed as, the enemy. But ones who refuse to acknowledge their privilege, and who choose to portray all social justice as undeserved payola when it is explicitly the REVERSE of that, those are the enemy. You may have noticed one of them in the mirror this morning.
(testing, my comment was not appearing, why?)
Ya know, I’m trying, but I really can’t see anything in mugato’s comments other than a lot of entitled complaining based in a deep refusal to understand what systemic privilege even is.
Mugato, my guy, my dude, my duderino, my dudely-doo, “white men” are not, and are not portrayed as, the enemy. But ones who refuse to acknowledge their privilege, and who choose to portray all social justice as undeserved payola when it is explicitly the REVERSE of that, those are the enemy. You may have noticed one of them in the mirror this morning.
RE: mugato
I don’t see any practical difference in opposing a movement for equality based on actively, consciously opposing equality for that demographic or opposing it because one has swallowed anti-feminist (or whichever) caricature and propaganda from those who do actively oppose equality.
Sure, lots of anti-feminists claim they merely oppose the movement and not actual equality. But, it’s always based on caricatures, propaganda, cherry-picking, and ignorance. (Example: The Google example. Since when is one company’s practices an example of the feminist movement?)
Anti-feminists try to position themselves as merely opposing the excesses of the movement. But it’s deeply and inherently and *transparently* dishonest.
@26, anbheal
How is that supposed to be helpful?
Mugato’s mind won’t be changed to agree with you if they just stop talking. Nor can they sincerely apologize for being wrong if they don’t yet agree with you. If you’re merely advising Mugato to save his reputation (or whatever), that seems like a severely misguided approach to conflict resolution. Because (for one thing) it resolves nothing.
@28 if i noticed a white man in my mirror this morning i would have called the cops.
well its not much better if they are considered the enemy just for not agreeing with you (and its not helping that you feel the need to group them based on race and sex). Most people don’t perceive ALL social justice as undeserved payola
@29 just because they dont agree doesnt mean they swallowed some caricature and propaganda, are they not suppose to oppose a group of people that are doing things they find sexist and racist? Ive only been on this site since yesterday and trust me this site was A lot closer to the caricatures than i would have thought. (though i believe this site is probably a bit on the extreme side). yes google was an EXAMPLE, everyone was keen on attacking “the memo guy” but saw nothing wrong with what the company was doing (the guy went to far but the company is worst), apparently saying they just disagree on things wasnt good enough so i used an example, do you believe their actions align with the feminist movement? (obviously i wouldnt judge a whole movement on 1 example).
there has always been excess, the problem is that “excess” is whats popular these days (im sure me and you have greatly different ideas of what is “excess”). See this is the problem, you already have it in your head that everyone who disagrees must be racist/sexist, the amount of times it was just assumed i was white today (here obv.) is exactly the kind of thing that movements like this should be against, but there seems to be no shame in that type of attitude
Maybe I just don’t get what this “proposal” is supposed to be in the first place. Inventing a new brand name doesn’t seem like a solution to the types of problems this is presumably about. That’s the kind of thing PepsiCo might do, but I’d need an explanation of what it’s supposed to accomplish (and how) in this case. I would’ve said (and I think I did say) the same things when people were fooling around with Atheism+, and I suppose New Atheism is not so different although it was created for different reasons.
I don’t have a particular word set aside for “a mentally competent adult human being who lacks moral responsibilties altogether.” I also don’t have a special word for “people (theists or atheists) who have good coherent reasons to be in favor of racism, sexism, classism, etc.” Those would both be mythical entities, like gods, unicorns, psychic powers, and so forth. So, even if there were analogous terms for them that somebody (who knows why) might want to contrive, we ought to be clear that it wouldn’t refer to actual things in the world which have those properties.
Now, sure, if you’re going to say “some atheists are opposed to racism, sexism, classism, etc., and there are others who are not,” then of course that’s true, and it’s clear what you’re talking about. But to keep going with the analogy, we don’t want to put ourselves in the situation of saying something that could be interpreted as “well, there’s this group of people over here who have psychic powers, and then some others don’t have them.”
When you say stuff like that, some may start thinking they’re psychic, start looking for some kind of a sign that they belong in that category, even if they had no particularly good reasons to suspect it beforehand, if it’s presented as a genuine option that’s on the table. Presumably, what you really wanted to say is that we’ve learned there aren’t good reasons to believe in psychic powers, as some people believe. There are those who think they’ve got them, but in fact they don’t. That’s an important thing to learn and understand, as you’re trying to navigate our society. What it’s not saying is that there are two camps in reality, the psychics and non-psychics, and somehow you’ll just have to figure out for yourself which one you actually belong in. And it’s not as if you’re saying “here are two options, try them out, see what suits your tastes: do you like Coke or Pepsi? (And do you like what we did with our new Pepsi label?)” These people are just plain wrong, and we can certainly explain why. That’s the kind of situation we’re in.
@12, mugato
You seem to be saying that”anti-sjw” and “anti-feminism” is not against the goal of equality and such, they’re just disagreeing on the means of achieving it.
I agree that that is true for some “anti-sjw” “anti-feminst” people. But …not all.
It’s good to make that distinction between goals and ways of achieving them. (unfortunately you might have failed to make that distinction when you said “rape culture(and all it entails, like “teach men not to rape”)”, so let me clarify that the goal of eliminating rape culture does not necessarily entail “teach men not to rape”)
Would help if you gave specific examples of the “actions” :)
@mugato #24:
You mean you’re not happy with [some notional] “the left” agreeing that there should be equality between men and women? You’ve already stated that you’re not white. Do you also think there should not be equality between white people and non-white people? Or is it a specific thing, a particular approach, or one small goal out of many, which you don’t agree with? At this stage, given all you’ve said, I’d really like to see some specifics.
To be blunt, I’d honestly wonder why by now you would not expound specific, real-world, misgivings to support your view.
@33 Pansky Maybe not all but it does seem to be the main mindset, all of the biggest names are like that for example (or at the very least play a role like that, not a mind reader), like the Youtubers that were so hated for speaking at mythcon 2017 arent preaching against the idea of equality. Exactly, I love the path paved with gold thing (i’ve used it plenty) because i dont believe that most people in “your camp” are sexist and racist….. just a lot of shit they say/do either is or just against my ideals in another way
poor choice of wording on the rape culture thing, i just meant how a lot of people dont agree with what they want to do about it like the whole “teach men not to rape” view or how much it even exists in the first place. Ive seen many people say that we need to view it more negatively but i dont know how much more negative something commonly seen as worst than murder can be.
as for the google actions i dont know specifics (again it was just an example), but apparently they have special programs to help minorities and women advance (by training i guess), which seems unfair to me, also they are very open with the idea that they want more women in general and are going to try and make that happen even if they apparently have a lack of women interested in comparison (then just give the job to people that want it, why should they have less of a chance of getting a job because a lot of women weren’t interested
I know you will disagree but at least you tried for an actual conversation without automatically assuming im racist/sexist (verbally/written). They are even suggesting they can make them go against something stupid just by pretending to be for it, i seriously question their logic.
mugato @24:
I think you are missing the point. Yes, those ‘few men’ are assholes. However, the rest of us (and I include myself in this a lot of the time), when: we are silent in the presence of a turd of sexist stereotyping; we are silent when a woman or a person of colour are talked over in a meeting; we are silent when police kill people-of-colour at a far higher rate than those who look like me; we are silent when the subject of rape comes up and the questions are, what was she wearing, why was she out so late, was she with a man?; we are silent when women students are chased away from their dreams; we are silent when we look at a company, an agency, an organization and see nothing but white men in positions of power.
Have I done all of these? Yes (less now than in the past). Do I deserve the reputation that middle-aged white men have? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Am I perfect in supporting an equitable society? No. Am I a social justice warrior? When I can I certainly am.
And there lies the rub. For me, it is an option. For a person of colour, or a woman, the choice is between fighting and outright surrender to the world that men like me have created (well, men with much more social, economic and cultural power than I). I can sit it out and still enjoy my privilege as a white man. I can decide that my personal issues are too much right now and retreat. I can do that. Because it rarely affects me directly.
So, do those few assholish men poison the reputation of men in general? Not really. People like me, by opting out of social justice at will, have done that. It is our privilege to retreat. And my privilege damns me. Not the shitlords of the internet.
@Rich Woods “Well we have the classics like wage gap, rape culture(and all it entails, like “teach men not to rape”), and wanting to hire people based on sex/race, but theres also the everyday things like feeling we have to change established characters for diversity, the idea that media that caters to the “male fantasy” is bad”, copy pasted from a previous comment of mine you must have missed, though it was pointed out that the rape culture part was poorly worded, me and others to varying degrees question how much of culture is it really when its common to think of it as worst than murder and even more (me included) greatly disagree with things like”teach men not to rape”
@ogvorbis I was just replying to PZ Myres “We do hate how some men are poisoning the reputation of white men.”
though to reply to your comment, i Do agree with you there, i mean we are even seeing it in hollywood right now with weinstein, it seems it was well known but everyone kept silent (except some jokes apparently), Its not a bad idea in general and an admirable thing to expect of yourself but i do question calling out all white men not helping and insulting them or thinking awful things in general but i can at least see not liking the ones content and just watch it happen. As for the rape and black shootings i think its a two way street, asking what a woman was wearing serves no purpose but treating it the same was as you would a murder seems logical to me, and by that i mean you wonder what they were doing that could have put them in harms way and warns others not to do similar things, hopefully you arent one of those people that think a woman shouldnt have to be responsible for her own safety (in a perfect world none of us would have to be), or acknowledging that a lot of the black shootings happen because the cops are in bad neighborhoods and are understandably on edge…. though we have seen proof this isnt always the case
Futility is a bitter almond.
Maybe the simplest solution remains the best: don’t ‘belong’ to any soup that can get infected by maggots. Just BE your own – that can’t be hijacked by maggots.
I fear that the anti-sjw crowd are in the main windy and vague mugs. Nailing them down to a specific idea is impossible, they always roll away to another vagueness.
@Lofty – Indeed. But the louts are always distinguishable from the lucid.
It seems to me that your obvious ignorance of what constitutes ‘rape culture’ and your opposition to “teaching men not to rape” are probably closely related.
It seems quite likely that if you have done any research whatsoever into what these things mean — or even made a similar comment previously in a place where people more knowledgeable than yourself could respond — you would have encountered an explanation of what rape culture, reasons why better education on consent would probably help, or both.
The only conclusion to draw, then, are that either you have not encountered such things (meaning you have NOT done even the barest minimum of good-faith research into the viewpoints you claim to oppose), or that you have, and either ignored them or failed to comprehend their relevance.
Which is EXACTLY why the “anti-SJW” viewpoint lacks any credibility.
God fucking forbid we should start to try and change cultural norms to be more diversity aware.
hey, idiot? that is how culture CHANGES for the better. you want to know why women can vote? this is how it happens.
sorry if it disturbs you. no wait, not sorry at all.
grow the fuck up.
41 jack lecou “either you have not encountered such things (meaning you have NOT done even the barest minimum of good-faith research into the viewpoints you claim to oppose), or that you have, and either ignored them or failed to comprehend their relevance.” So either I am ignorant about what I’m talking about to the point that I haven’t even looked into it (educate yourself!) Or Im stupid….. see the funny thing is this is exactly why they don’t respect your opinion either (seems similar to the anyone who disagrees with the movement is a racist/sexist mindset we see in this post as well).
42. I seem to remember comics didn’t need to change their characters sex to get women to vote….. surprisingly there are other ways to go about that (shocker I know)
“I know you are but what am I” is not a cogent response.
Here’s some further illustration of how easy it is to tell when someone is fatally ignorant and/or full of shit:
All of those statements exhibit a similar and recognizable pattern. See if you can figure out what it is…
The problem is that you’re talking about and identifying with what you *don’t* believe. There are lots of people who don’t believe a thing and they don’t necessarily agree with you! You need to, instead, focus on talking about and identifying with what you *do* believe! You’re Secular Humanist. Those people with whom you disagree can’t touch that. They are definitely *not* Secular Humanist. They may be Secular, but they’re definitely *not* Humanist. They can’t touch that. You’re standing up for what you believe in, not what you don’t believe. Big difference!
Don’t even try to accuse me of “I know you are but what am i” when yours was just “well you’re dumb”, I’m finding it a common theme that you and an annoyingly amount of others here are holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourselves to.
But I’ll bite anyways I guess….. i never said rape culture isn’t real, I said that the “anti group” has varying ideas of how real the rape culture is,my whole problem with this post was just how misrepresenting it was in general, not on a personal level which is the main thing ive been trying to say (those who dont agree with this mindset usually have reasons and are not just born from sexism and racism, it shouldn’t be surprising people can disagree with you without being horrible people), but if im going to talk personally… I find it a broad term so it can be applied to our country if you try but it’s a pretty misleading term (common with this kind of thing which is also a problem with the movement in general ), the main parts like trivializing rape, women being objects, denying it happens or its impact is not something that’s a problem, and if anything it’s vilified more than it should be (I know that sounds horrible but I’m just talking about how it’s not unusual for it to be more socially unaccapted than murder, I’ll ask that you keep that in mind and not take it out of context), the problem begins when even something like sexualizing women is seen as a part of it
finethen
Just signing in with this shitty phone was, indeed, a pain.
But, lookie, I can still do punctuation and paragraphs!
Of course, I don’t have a thousand-word treatise to contribute.
(the autofill on this thing is hilarious)
It’s convenient that you’ve made your position self-refuting … saves everybody else lots of time.
I’m not going to address all of mugato’s claims because he’s spewing faster than I can type, but let me look at a couple:
1. with regards to companies developing training and hiring programs specifically to increase the number of women and minorities:
There is actual research and data showing that women and minorities are often underserved or pushed out of opportunities for learning computer science or other technical subjects. There is subtle racism and sexism in classrooms where teachers help girls and minorities less with difficult subjects. There’s the issue of it being a “boy’s club” where women are often harassed. There’s the issue of young girls being told that science isn’t “girly”. At the elementary level there is an equal number of boys and girls interested in science and technology. As kids grow it decreases. By the time you get to college there’s nearly twice as many young men in STEM fields than young women. Now, I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of a biological mechanism for estrogen to cause a waning interest in science or for testosterone to cause a growing interest in science. On the other hand, society (through subtle and overt methods) pushes girls out of STEM fields in ways that are documented and studied. Affirmative action and programs like “Code like a girl” are aimed at leveling the playing field and giving young women the same opportunities as young men. This works by giving girls more support than they previously had because they previously had less than boys.
A different way to think about it is that if I have some kids who go to a school that teaches science and other kids that go to a school that just has no labs, it is reasonable to think that when they grow up the kids that when to science school will excel in STEM fields and get jobs in technology. If I want to help the non-science school kids and make sure everyone has a chance to get a STEM job I’m going to spend money and create an afterschool program for the non-science school kids so they can do science labs. Sure I’m only giving extra help to the non-science school kids, but I’m just getting them up to the level of support that the science school kids already had.
2. General comment on hating white men:
I don’t hate white men. But I do hate any man who calls me a SJW for telling him to shut the fuck up when he whistles at me or a friend. I hate any man who tells me to take it as a compliment when someone comments on my appearance and how it affects their boner. I hate any man who doesn’t realize that having every single female character wearing bikini armour or in skin tight and gravity defying body suits in an action movie movie is sexist. I hate any man who thinks that it’s stupid that I want some representation in media that isn’t aimed at giving him a boner. I hate any man who thinks that the legacy of his precious comics is more important than making sure children of today have a diverse set of heroes that show them that anyone can be super. I hate any man who can suspend his disbelief long enough to accept magical beings and dragons and ridiculous acrobatics, but can’t suspend his disbelief long enough to accept a woman smarter or stronger than a man or a woman who doesn’t dress to please but still has success in life. And I hate those men not because of their gender, but because of what is in their brains.
When someone says something along the lines of the examples I gave, they are, in fact, demonstrating a profound ignorance of the subject on which they are attempting to expound. There are few good responses to someone evincing such an amazing lack of understanding, but pointing out that they are literally ignorant of the topic at hand is not an unreasonable or uncalled for one. Sometimes that’s a statement of fact, supported by the evidence, not (just) a throwaway insult.
Patient explanation is another option, but one most productively used only on children or others who might be innocently unlearned. It often doesn’t have much effect on those who demonstrate a more malignant willful and/or negligent ignorance, as in the case of a literate adult confidently making pronouncements on a topic they clearly know next to nothing about.
Yet here I go…
I mean, maybe I’m having trouble figuring out what your viewpoints are versus what you’re just ‘devils advocating’, but I literally quoted what you said. And the existence of rape culture — how real it is — isn’t something that’s a matter of opinion or degree. Definitions of what’s included in that phrase can vary slightly, but any given one is referring to specific observable phenomena (things like victim blaming, or regarding women’s bodies as trophies) whose existence is usually fairly plain, at least if one is willing to look. Those things do exist, ergo rape culture is real. Full stop.
Now, certainly the prevalence of these things can change. That’s the whole point in drawing attention and fighting rape culture in the first place. To reduce and eliminate them.
But the presence of some other well known phenomenon — like the fact that most societies view rape (in the abstract…) as a serious crime — doesn’t moderate or reduce any of the other phenomena making up rape culture, any more than the existence of monkeys or snow makes evolution or global warming less real, respectively.
Indeed, this is one of the commonalities in those examples. If he ever bothered to take a second to think about it, the individual espousing those viewpoints should realize that unless his interlocutors are indeed complete idiots who have failed to notice that snow falls occasionally or that rape has been criminalized, then maybe these obvious facts have indeed already been considered and accounted for.
I’m having trouble even following what you’re saying here. Are you trying to say you don’t think things like trivializing rape, objectifying women, or denying rape’s prevalence are bad things? Or are you saying you have failed to notice that these things actually occur? Neither one of those options is very flattering…
That’s true in a way. This goes back to that thing I was saying about obvious factors having been recognized. Indeed, the fact that rape is so vehemently and lavishly vilified is in some ways part of the problem. For example, it facilitates scenarios like this:
Rape is a monstrous and evil crime — worse than murder even. So obviously. our Bobby can’t be a rapist, can he? He’s not a monster. He’s a good kid, really. It must just have been some kind of misunderstanding. A momentary lapse in judgement, not a *real* rape. Or maybe this woman is just having some regrets. We should move on and put this whole unpleasant business behind us, because ruining poor Bobby’s future with prison just wouldn’t be fair.
Scenarios like that have never played out, ever. No-sirree.
Of course, as we’re observing right in this very exchange, the nominal vilification of rape also serves as a cheap excuse to dismiss the rest of rape culture. “How prevalent can rape culture really be in Western society? I mean, it’s very illegal, and everyone agrees that legitimate rape is really, really bad. Does that sound like rape culture to you? What more can possibly be done?”
….sigh.
Again, not sure what you mean here. ‘Sexualizing women’ is a weird turn of phrase. I doubt you can find any ‘SJWs’ who have any problem with women being sexual if they wish, or deny that they can be.
Possibly you mean sexual objectification of women. But that’s trivially a thing that exists – our culture plainly commoditizes women’s bodies, and then has a nasty tendency to forget that female bodies aren’t the most (let alone only) worthwhile aspect of their owners existences. And it’s easy to see how that’s pretty rape culture adjacent. After all, if women’s bodies are the only really valuable thing they have to offer, what do their thoughts, opinions or consent really matter? They’re just flesh trophies. And if they do get uppity with the whole ‘being actual people’ thing then maybe they need to be taken down a peg and shown what they’re really there for, right? This is all hardly a stretch — one would hope.
That aside (if that’s what you’re even trying to say), let’s step back and talk about identification.
If indeed you do regard things like equal treatment and consent as import principles, at least in general, but merely have specific, limited and (key!) defensible objections to some part of the whole SJW platform, then it seems like an abysmally poor life choice to throw your lot in with the racist, misogynistic malignancy that is the anti-SJW crowd. The better option would seem to be more or less identifying with the SJWs and, where appropriate, pressing your case as to why we should reconsider on this or that specific point.
This is the difference between, for example, proposing a minor modification to the Standard Model of quantum mechanics (in order to better account for dark energy, say) and proposing an entirely new crackpot theory of everything. One’s a more or less reasonable position to take, where you’ll be in good company at least, even you do turn out to be wrong on the one point. The other’s just….wrong.
Nah, the problem is that atheism itself is inherently racist and sexist, and that all of the “chivalrous” concepts were just culturally appropriated from religion to begin with.
Secular Humanism was just a philosophy invented by a Frenchman Auguste Comte after the French Revolution as a replacement for religion – which bastardized the Catholic Church and merely replaced the supernatural jargon with “sci-fi” sounding jargon:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/cult-of-comte-s-positivism-claims-key-role-in-brazil-1.2051387
The reality is that “belief” in social justice is just another faith-based belief (albeit without supernatural mythology), and most atheists have never bothered to think and question their philosophy to begin with.
The reality is that from a materialist perspective, there’s no reason that racism, sexism, is even “objectively” bad to begin with – other apes do those things, and telling a chimpanzee its “wrong” to abuse a female chimpanzee would be silly, so why start with humans?
Marquis de Sade (who advocated rape and sexual violence) was much more consistent with his materialistic atheism than any “social justice atheist” is – since social justice is really nothing more than another faith-based, moral belief (just without all of the “God” fluff, but aside from that, it’s no different than the ‘moral code’ of any historical religion).
Veritas Media #53
Are you high?
A) Chimpanzee society is complex, so it may not be as ‘silly’ as you think. That aside,
B) Humans are a good place to start because WE are humans. Also, the ‘female human’ can talk about how she feels, and the ‘male human’ can understand her. (And if not him, the rest of us can listen to her.)
Next.
Presumably, there would be a reason why you think it would be silly tell a chimp something. I’m sort of wondering if you’re new at speaking to humans and explaining things to them. But I don’t know…. Why would you start doing that? From a materialist perspective, you’re just making random noises. It’s unfortunate that we have to hear them.
There is no objective morality, true. That doesn’t mean there is no morality at all. We can discuss and decide what we think of and how we respond to certain behavior like theft and murder or like helping and caring. Call it subjective morality if you will. “Subjective” doesn’t necessarily mean “wrong” or “irrelevant”.
There may be no natural law which says that suffering is bad. But I think suffering is bad, and I want to limit it as much as reasonably possible.
You gotta love that part. “You’re playing the victim, but look at meeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!”
I am rather impressed with all the people making sense of whatever mugato is typing. Coherency is not his strong talent.
The name Veritas Media makes me think they’re some sort of Roman Catholic apologist. The kind of Protestant apologists who’d show up here don’t seem to be big on Latin.
hemidactylus @ # 5: Atheism Minus was proposed on a previous thread as a pejorative against alt-right atheism…
I’m coming to prefer “atheism negative” for these jerks.
timgueguen @ # 60: The name Veritas Media makes me think they’re some sort of Roman Catholic apologist.
It reminds me of full-time liar James O’Keefe’s “Project Veritas gish-gallops.
It’s interesting that it’s impossible to tell whether Veritas Media is a psychopathic rapist making excuses for their behaviour, or a religious believer trying to coinvince themself that atheism implies that moral judgements are just empty noise.
@mugato
1) Why did you come here with nothing to back up what you said in your first post? You can say things like what PZ wrote was a strawman, or that there is a lot of hatred, but without examples your challenge is worthless. I’m certainly not doing anything differently.
2) Do you know what in-group psychology is?
Without examples of your so-called “anti-white male rhetoric” this white male will assume you just don’t like seeing criticism of sexism, misogyny, and racism. It’s simply a fact that lots of unapologetic sexist, misogynistic, and racist white males will simply describe it the way you do.
Do your work lazy, I don’t know you from the next set of black lines on a white background.
@Veritas Media
Quote the sections that support you. I can’t figure out what parts of that article you think support you.
mugato keeps telling us that he’s a minority over and over again (twice in this thread, and also in others), and not necessarily in response to being called a white man by someone else, either. It’s rather curious behaviour. I wonder if he thinks that we keep forgetting about that, or if he keeps forgetting about it himself.
rietpluim:
But what exactly do you think that means? Is it just that there’s no “natural law” which says so? Yet even there, you only say there “may be no” such thing. That’s kind of odd, because those “laws” which people write down aren’t ever designed for that purpose anyway (none that I’m aware of at least); but in any case, it’s not a definite claim that there isn’t one, that this is the truth which can somehow be supported or established by something.
Speaking of supporting it…. Assuming you’re not just pulling it out of your ass, then what series of thoughts, what bits of evidence, etc., should lead me to the same conclusion that there is no objective morality? Whatever it does mean, however you think you got there — that’s what I’m asking for. But I doubt there’s much of that for anybody to offer.
Considering all this, could we at least agree that you probably don’t need to give a shithead like Veritas so much for free? If they think they’ve got correct, rigorous, well-supported conclusions which can be clearly articulated, then make them show their fucking work, since one doesn’t get that with no work. Please don’t do any part of it for them and think that you don’t have to show your work either.
@#4 HappyHead: i realize i’m suuuuuuuuuper late to this party, the discussion has gone far afield, i risk this going unseen and being thought irrelevant at this point by the greater commentariat, but your comment made me immediately think of this and, well, it’s pretty great, so i thought i’d share. (goes back to lurking)
@51 Student, I and many others have no issue with trying to get more women interested in STEM, but that doesnt mean im ok with the idea of showing a clear bias in hiring and promoting practices. Its not fair on an individual level and only serves to equal out numbers like if that’s the most important thing
well i may not agree with everything you stated but im glad you dont have a general distaste for white men, though i have noticed that there are a lot of that kind of talk and at the very least a general dismissal of them, hell just here yesterday i was “accused” of being a white man about half a dozen times as an attempt to dismiss me, you can just google white man or white men and you see obvious negative things… i dont think its most people that have this kind of view but it seems like its an accepted view that the movement doesnt think is a big problem.
@52 jack, im just going to drop the 1st part as its obviously heading nowhere and honestly i have my hands full already here lmao.
my whole point on this post was supposed to sort of be devils advocate since there is an obvious misrepresentation but people weren’t really satisfied with that and kept asking about my opinions and to give examples and what not….. so here we are i guess, honestly this was not what i was looking for lol, shockingly i didnt really feel like bringing up things that i think for the sole purpose of being attacked by a group of people that think differently (though sounds like something i might do, i am pretty argumentative, but more importantly its kind of too broad and sort of defeats what i was trying to do by kind of going off topic, i keep trying to push it back to that kind of thing but i guess its coming off as a little awkward at this point lol.
well prevalence, varying degrees, i feel like you are splitting hairs with me here lol. While its true something like trivializing it (just an example) doesnt lessen other parts it could show that the problem is less than people make it out to be (potentially), and yes those things i mentioned “arent a problem” i meant are not as common as a lot of people would have you believe (you could just google rape culture and find many articles trying to make it out worst than it is, though the hollywood ones are probably correct, seems like it but hell if i know). The vilification of it possibly making it worst is an interesting point though, it reminds me of a louis CK joke where he says that there would be less dead kids if child rape wasnt so look down on, she ends it with something like “see i know this, the problem is what am i supposed to do with that information”.
Sexualizing is a more broad term, and i seriously wonder where you live and what you do that you dont notice these things, this seems to be kind of an issue in the movement, just recently i remember ariel winter was getting shit for it and its well known that the split on the idea exists as its even featured in media like the episode on american dad when haley became a stripper or the awesomes when they seduced men for info
but thats my whole point You have the wrong view of that crowd (which annoys me when i see a group totally misrepresented and any of their complaints are just hand waved away because “obviously they are just “sexist/racist” (though i know it happens a lot in the other group as well, though at least even most of those people will say they dont hate the idea of feminism, just the current movement) as someone pretty into that crowd i can see for myself the bad parts and i know that isnt the majority (plus its not really a group, we just have something in common)
@59 multitasking and yes i have a problem explaining myself at times
@63 1)equating being against SJW’s and what the current movement of feminism to that person just being a racist/sexist is a strawman, 2) as for the white hatred that comes about from those movements i honestly didnt think i needed examples, you’d have to be blind not to see it, and thats the thing, i wasnt trying to “challenge” anything other than someone who is against these movements is not necessarily sexist or racist and its a ridiculous thing to try and claim
@65 CK well i felt it was something that i needed to bring up since i was talking about being against white males, thought it was necessary because a lot of people would just assume i was a white male and disregard my opinion, but i find it odd that you seem to have more of a problem with that than the fact that people here have been “accusing” me of being a white male….. but yeaaaah where would i get the idea that its better to say it now than having to pointlessly say it later, theres no reason for me to think that would happen /sarcasm
The claim that movement atheism is a “white male thing” is based on the conflation of the movement with well-known authors and bloggers in the movement. We are all the movement, whether the regressives admit it or not. Many of us were excited that a number of atheist authors became popular and got a lot of media attention all around one time, but without an audience, where would they be now? Movements are always described in terms of their famous “leaders,” but no movement is comprised of such leaders–though they do of course contribute and facilitate in their own ways.
Also, no movement is without its divisions, and that is a good thing, too. The divisions clarify the purpose of the movement. Without these issues coming up, we might never have realized that it is important for us to point out that as atheists, we should aim to be rational on more than just the one question, which means that we will intersect with other social movements.
We should also recognize the proper place of famous authors and bloggers. There are some, such as Dawkins and Harris, who deserve recognition for their contributions to the movement–but they are not above criticism when they are wrong. More important, such authors are not our “leaders.” We are our own leaders.
On the other hand, there are authors and bloggers who contribute nothing positive to the movement, and while they deserve criticism, and we certainly want to distance the mainstream of the movement from them, we should also find ways to do so without giving them free and unearned publicity whenever possible. As we can see from our current presidential predicament, these days any ape who throws feces will get some applause.
I keep thinking about what that was in 2011. It wasn’t just FTB fighting with ‘pitters, other communities had similar conflicts over things like harassment policies and the acceptance of bigoted behavior. From my perspective it was fascinating because it was a simultaneous event. Rebecca Watson’s advice about creepy behavior in elevators was just one example, there was also Harris and his dismissal of critics with “estrogen vibe” and describing of community as “intrinsically male”.
It was a bunch of bigoted dominance displays. I’m being literal. “Dear Muslima”, “Don’t complain about your problem right here! Complain about what I want you to and happens be over there!”, redirection of social attention using the general rules of gossip writ large. Slandering of people trying to get sexual assault, racism, homophobia, and transphobia taken seriously. People were inundated in death threats, rape threats, had images of their’s altered for general mockery, and had their image placed in other images for the same and more.
Lots of little bursts of childish to molevolent action with social purpose. Clouds of people representing not only rape culture but lots of little bigot cultures reverberating around the internet. Bigotry is social dominance behavior. Like starlings in a murmeration they show up in places like terrorism comments of YouTube videos. But it’s just a numbers game, they can’t win forever. The opposition in comments will increase over time as people learn how to functionally deal with them.
If it has bits and pieces it can be dismantled and responded to. The thing generating bigotry will look like the the thing generating other political behavior.
@mugato
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where white men are vilified for being white men. It’s just accepted that white men are not experts, nor do they have personal experience, with the discrimination and biases against women and minorities. That’s not a bad thing, but it means that when it comes to these topics they should shut up and listen. There is also a tendency of defensive white men to defend the status quo and assume that if they haven’t seen something personally then it can’t be that big of a problem and the people complaining just need to grow up. This mentality is a bad thing.
Also, there is research and strong evidence showing that the same application is rated higher if the name attached to it is a traditionally male name. To combat this bias that already appears on the individual level, people need to introduce some policies that help women on the individual level. It’s literally just leveling the playing field so that men and women who are equally competent are given the same opportunities.
@The Student
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where white men are vilified for being white men.”
I have. As lame jokes about how white people are teh worst, and “fuck white people”. Never on this website, and these are quite rare elsewhere on the internet as well. But anti-sjws have a powerfull megaphone and love to blow up their cherry picked examples as the norm when they are not. Thus making otherwise good and nornmal ppl sympathetic to their cause, which I believe Mugato is.
I like to use the example of “triggered” as an example of how terrible people control the perceptions and use of language using such a megaphone. There are legit normal people who use the phrase jokingly because to them it means sjw snowflake is offended, but I wonder how many would use the term if they knew it came from rape apologists scumbags triggering the ptsd of rape survivors by being such undefensible assholes.
@71″I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where white men are vilified for being white men.”
“assume that if they haven’t seen something personally then it can’t be that big of a problem and the people complaining just need to grow up. This mentality is a bad thing.”
lol come on i had to
to add to what logicalcat said (though i disagree with how “cherry picked” it is, that isnt all that wrong), i just googled White men and on the first page there is a article titled “White men must be stopped the very future of mankind depends on it”, you get the anti white thing a lot with some of the black activists like franchesca ramsey, the combining of feminism with racial issues has made it so sometimes thats grouped down even farther to specifically white men (especially since they were in power when all of the slavery was going on)
@72)well they may have “started it” but it didnt actually get popular until the feminist Melody Hensley tried to say she was suffering from PTSD due to online harassment (Knowyourmeme), though it was already noticable the term was being used too often by feminists before that
@Mugato
Triggered used to often? Do you understand how many women have been sexually assaulted and thus suffer from PTSD? I can tell you from personal experience both that being triggered is real and that many men will threaten women with sexual assault or threats online just for sharing opinions. Also, online harassment is real harassment. In some ways it can be worse, it follows you home, it happens at all times of day, and it is almost impossible to escape or erase when it starts. You clearly lack knowledge and empathy for women and what they face in the world. I hope at some point you will stop trying to be contrary and actually listen and learn and educate yourself from sources other than aggrieved white men.
@71 Student forgot to respond to your 2nd part (sorry peeps 4 the double post), i understand there is some need for an equalizer but to suggest that anytime people are showing favoritism towards women or minorities is a level playing field is naive at best…. just recently the DNC apparently was looking for applicants for tech jobs and it was leaked that the specifically didnt want the email forwarded to any “cis-gendered white men”, though im not sure if it has been proven to be fake or false yet (seems legit but you know how politics are)
Oh yeah, my “fascinating” is sometimes of the “can’t stop looking at a car accident” kind. I bend it into “post mortums” of abusive social events. I should have added that for a better tone.
Then you would not be okay with a (de facto) bias in favor of white men. That should be corrected somehow, because it isn’t fair. But once we actually do something to make things more fair, to ensure that qualified people from half the population (women) are hired and promoted (and paid) equally to the other half, that’s apparently when you find something unsettling about the whole ordeal.
As long as nobody is deliberately favoring whites or men (if that were true), then what is this more important thing that you’re worried about? Is that really how it goes, that something must be purposeful for you to care at all about it?
Or is that situation (the real one we’re actually dealing with) also worrisome, but not enough to do anything? What are your complaints like, if you have any, about our current real-world situation in which men (not women) typically have all sorts of unfair advantages?
Or do you assume that this equaling out of the numbers must involve unqualified women, because you think that’s a safe assumption to make (or one you didn’t realize you were making) about that half of the population? Did you think it was safe to assume that the men who are supposedly being treated unfairly on an individual level are qualified? What exactly made you conclude that something about this very general approach is unfair?
lol Mugato. Knowyourmeme is wrong. Sorry but we all here remember the attacks. Assholes going into feminist spaces with rape survivors telling them that “they secretly liked it”, “they are all sluts anyways who deserve it”, “your just lying bitches who are crying rape after regretting sex”, ext. It was already a punchline before whatever the hell you mentioned, but because on the internet language and ideas are curated by assholes, they presented this meme as feminists being to sensitive because either they are too dumb to understand the difference between a feminist being offended and triggering someones mental illness or they lack the empathy to care. And someone like you buys into it because of course, you werent there, and the old saying “a lie travels far while the truth limpers behind”.
Sorry, but you bought the propaganda hook line and sinker.
#73: Melody Hensley is a personal friend of mine. She was legitimately and honestly diagnosed by medical professionals with PTSD for all the harassment she was given, of which your dishonest and ignorant post is another example. She did not “try” to say she was diagnosed with PTSD, she was, and she is still suffering from this abuse.
You will immediately retract and apologize for your claim, or be banned. You will make no other comments here until you have done so. I am not going to accept some random asshole strutting in here and making light of a serious mental health problem.
@Mugato
Btw, actualy look into your facts more deeply than knowyourmeme. https://www.skepticink.com/gps/2014/04/18/can-one-get-ptsd-via-twitter/
Nothing has changed, other than assholes being assholes, setting up a fasle narrative painting the object of their harrassment as sensitive snowflakes, then clueless ppl like yourself buy into it I guess because the truth actyually requires more work than simply googling it and calling it a day.
to be clear, that was directed at Mugato.
someone some of us pointed out after their very first post here would be a waste of time to respond to.
and yet, you persisted.
wanna know why I spend so little time here any more?
that’s why.
Ichthyic
haveaniceday
Mugato if you are reading, honeslty, as someone who surrounds himself with anti-sjws on purpose (local gaming and board game community in florida lol) I can tell you with all honesty and sincerity that following anti-sjw rhetoric makes one less imformed and generaly dumber the deeper they get in..
Since Mugato seems to have run away from my demand and has stopped the prolific shitposting to be silent, I’m going to enforce that. Mugato is banned. No loss at all.
The “Atheism-minus” is probably getting a bit baroque. Maybe we should identify in a more positive way. “Atheist” is really a slur created by the religious, and defining people by what they are not is just rude.