Why I don’t love the “atheist community” chapter 782. A public Facebook post by “The Amazing Atheist” who is sadly unamazing. Jaclyn Glenn shared it in a public post of her own.
PZ Myers is a pile of shit in a man suit. So here he is attacking Jaclyn Glenn for daring to not identify as a feminist. That’s feminism for you: “Women can make any choice they want! Except the choice not to be feminists!”
His main argument is the Jaclyn’s video fails because she uses some comedic exaggeration in it that he feels distorts a position. Was the position distorted? I’ll let you guys watch the video and read PZ’s blog post and decide for yourselves.
Oh, and don’t bother trying to comment on PZ’s blog if you do disagree with him. Dissenting points of view are not tolerated there.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/07/18/dont-be-this-atheist/
First, I notice I don’t call Jaclyn Glenn things comparable to “a pile of shit in a man suit.”
Second – yes, of course that’s feminism for you. Feminism is not anti-feminism – shock-horror! Yes, feminism considers Phyllis Schlafly for instance not a feminist. She can of course choose that, and she did, but that doesn’t mean feminism has to consider it feminist to “choose to” attack feminism. Anyway my feminism doesn’t rely on the claim that feminism=whatever choice any woman makes. Far from it. There are lots of choices that women can make that aren’t feminist.
Third there’s the worn-thin trope that “dissenting points of view are not tolerated” on PZ’s blog. Yeah that’s just bullshit.
So Glenn pursues her course of bashing feminists for being divisive. Hmm.
Oh, so that’s where the “I know you’re just going to delete this anyway, because you’re all nazis, but this is my opinion of you which is based on all the things that other people have told me and into which I have put no actual research” comments come from.
Still, it’s good to know that rational argument is an irrelevant consideration in TAA’s book. Always a good sign when your thought leaders are actively dismissive of intellectual honesty.
It’s amazing how conservatives and glibertarians have latched on to that “criticism is illiberal” meme: feminists can’t criticize anti-feminism, it’s intolerant to criticize bigots, etc.
By TAA’s logic, he is opposed to freedom of religion, because he criticizes the choice to be religious.
The only thing amazing about him is the fact that people can actually listen to him and think he doesn’t have his head shoved so far up his ass it’s poking his spleen.
We’ve had this conversation, no? He’s “amazing” the way the worst-smelling pile of dogshit you’ve ever come across can be described as “amazing”…
There’s not enough booze in the world to deal with this week.
I’m amazed that the “Amazing Atheist” thinks whatever he bleats is worth reading.
Oh, yes, I’m sure we’ve had this conversation more than once, even. But…it’s hard to mention the AA without pointing out that he isn’t.
If atheists get to keep all the baggage that comes with religion (racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia, etc) then what’s the point? Why does it matter if they get the right answer to the easiest question when they get the wrong answer to all the others? Morality can be complicated sometimes, sure, but things like “women are people” should be just as obvious as “there are no gods” but many of these youtube atheists want to strut around flaunting their superior logic and reasoning abilities just for figuring out the god part. Being a decent human being and believing things that decent human beings believe is much more praiseworthy than figuring out there’s no pixies in your garden. There’s nothing “amazing” about that.
I am so glad that Jaclyn retains the love and affection of the atheist community, represented by such estimable thinkers as The Amazing Atheist.
I’m seeing a lot of cult behavior going on. “No dissent is allowed.” “Always defend the in-group against outsiders.” “Our leader(s) may never be criticized.”
It’s all very fascist, actually. Here, if anyone is interested, is a nice short article by Umberto Eco, from almost a decade ago, “Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt”.
While atheists may not have the “cult of tradition” going for them (despite how many ancient sources expressing atheistic views we may care to list), the atheist movement appears to more than make up for that lack with #2, rejection of modernism, with particular emphasis on women’s rights. Sad.
It’s way too easy to find examples, and not just within the atheism movement. We’re steeped in it, and we don’t seem to be able to see our way out.
@9, Blanche Quizno:
That article sounds interesting, but you did not, in fact, give a working link. Google says it’s available in multiple places, one such is: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html.
It’s really pretty illuminating because it relies on nobody actually checking for themself. It’s trivially easy to disprove: just look at any thread that gets up to a few hundred posts. The only reason that ever happens is because of some protracted disagreement.
These people talk about cultish behavior and hive minds and such while fully expecting their listeners to uncritically accept every claim they make.
LOL…and rereading the actual post, he goes so far as to explicitly tell people not to try. So he gets credit for providing a source for his claim in the form or a link the post but warns people against actually testing his hypothesis against reality. Skepticism, yo!
I hope Jaclyn one day grows up and realizes the shameful way she is acting right now. One good thing about this is she has made up my mind for me – I will not attend her talk at the Atheist Community of San Jose this August. I had considered going try to ask her to think more deeply about her strawpersonning of feminists, but it’s pretty clear now that that would be a big waste of time.
I’m sure The Amazing Atheist will soon be inundated by a wave of people explaining how he’s being divisive and should really just shut up for the sake of atheist unity.
Yep. Any moment now.
OMG, The Amazing “extreme pedophilic fantasies” Atheist! That’s a helluva teammate.
The Amazing Atheist is the guy who purposely tried to trigger a rape survivor on reddit because he doesn’t believe in triggering, IIRC. He’s a real charmer.
“You say you’re tolerant, but you won’t tolerate my intolerance!”
Well, yes. Paradoxically, that’s how it works.
<blockquote cite="The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper”>
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
I dislike the word “tolerant” in this context altogether. To tolerate something/someone is to simply not make a big deal out of things and people you disapprove of. We need to stop tolerating people and just fucking treat them like people.
Seven of Mine: Point taken.
(Side note: Ugh, I fail at HTML, again)