UPDATED: For purposes of documentation, I am now posting all comments defending and/or supporting The Amazing Atheist. This post had originally just contained the posts that were bad enough to not let through comment moderation, but not bad enough to warrant the “post-and-ban” treatment under the #mencallmethings hashtag. However, it’s been pointed out (which I was already beginning to think myself) that this could create an inaccurate perception of TAA’s supporters and defenders, since the comments that weren’t bad enough to get banned were just going into various comment threads and might get lost. I have now added every comment I could find in this blog defending and/or supporting. If I missed any, please let me know.
As regular readers may know, I recently put up a post excoriating The Amazing Atheist for making brutal, graphic rape threats, and calling on the atheist community to shun him. As a result, there’s been an influx of comments here from his fans. Some of those comments have been approved; many of those comments have been posted with the commenters then banned (do a search on this blog on “#mencallmethings” if you want to know why). And many have been held in comment moderation. These comments push the boundaries of my comment policy: among other things, they re-state points that have already been made and addressed multiple times (you didn’t understand the context that the rape threats were made in, freeze peach, you’re horrible and hateful, freeze peach, don’t take it so seriously, freeze peach, and shut up), they don’t show respect for my basic right to moderate my blog, I suspect many of them come from people who behave atrociously in other blogs (I don’t know that for sure, but some of the names seem familiar), and they’re acting like assholes.
However, this post and the conversation it’s generated has gotten a certain amount of attention. So for anyone who is interested in what TAA’s defenders have to say for him, I am posting those comments here in this space. (No, I’m not letting them go through as comments in the original post, as I don’t want to derail that conversation with the flood that would almost certainly derail it.)
To make it very clear: I think the “freeze peach” argument is laughable. To recap what has been said on this subject many many many MANY times: This is my blog; commenters are guests in it; you don’t have the right to speak in my space; your right to free speech doesn’t include the right to force my to listen; unmoderated blogs and forums almost inevitably devolve into venom pits; and I am not obligated to give a platform for ideas I find reprehensible. And cries of “You’re censoring us!” without being accompanied by any actual content are particularly laughable. But since some people might have legitimate reasons to see the responses from the opposition, I’m posting them here. These are in
chronological order (CORRECTION — these are being posted in rough chronological order, as they’re going into different comment folders which makes it difficult to keep track of the precise order they were posted in); new ones will be added to the bottom.
For those who don’t particularly want to see the responses from the opposition, here is a picture of a bunny.
Responses are below the jump.
I’m going to respond to each paragraph. [I believe he's responding to this comment - GC]
P1. I implore you to watch the content we’re discussing before debating it. That’s exactly what was said. First five quotes, he has said he is sorry for.
P2. Death threats is irrelevant, the source we’re discussing does not site the person in question as giving death threats. Being horrible is part of insulting someone, sorry but that’s just what an insult is, they’re not nice and there’s no way around that. He discusses in the video that he was dealing with extremists, the type who believe that all men were misogynistic rapists. It’s not a debate about if rape is okay or not, it’s the equivalent of ten year olds calling each other poo poo face. Both sides were being immature and demeaning.
P3. Yes, it would. These may also be debated.
P4. People do take these to mean different things. But saying you’re for sex, racial and LGBT equality only really means you think that those people should have the same rights as each other. If someone of a certain sex/ethnicity/sexual orientation can do something, so can all the others.
P5. These are not my beliefs. Apparently people are too lazy to watch a video where someone explains their beliefs, so I’m doing it here. I don’t really know the whole context behind the attempted PTSD trigger attempt, again that’s one of the things he apologized for as he believes he went overboard but he stands by his initial reasoning. He felt like some people who had been victimized used that to censor him, bringing up past history that they should have got help for a long time ago to overcome.
Erm… Okay? You may have discussed it but people may actually want to know what he himself actually said. You’ve deleted the person’s comment with his video embedded (which I can understand), but I’m not holding any of these points to my own morals. These are what he roundabout believes rather than your hypothetical reasoning. If you don’t want people to view his video at least let me explain his actual reasoning.
Apparently people don’t know that TTA had apologized numerous times for the first five quotes. – Single comment and not ad nauseam.
You guys are just hate harboring. When the person you’re accusing responds you censor it. Good job, seems fair. Consider moving from a place called “freethought”blogs?
Bannana Rape [take note of the handle, please - GC]
I just came to say I find it hilarious how many people here agree with a single person’s opinion on another person, instead of finding out about the person themselves and forming their OWN opinion.
This blog post is a COMPLETE waste of time.
Freek van Dommelen:
Greta, TAA doesn’t hate all women. He hates women who spread all kinds of nonsense about men.
Lack of Empathy? He stick up for so many people. Your just hate filled. Look at the grand scheme of things and watch his video. He explains everything very well. I noticed his followers did not lower which is good. Shows that there are some free-thinking open minded people. I am sick of everyone using crutches. Any future comments have to be approved by you? You only want a one sided argument. Typical.
Watch and shut up. [link to TAA video that I'm not going to link to - GC]
For those who are just lapping all this up and being gullible, might you want to LOOK at the context these quotes were lifted from?
(link to TAA video that I’m not going to link to)
TJ has done an full on explanation of such contexts of where these actually came from, so if anyone is unfamiliar with TJ, or his channel, watching this might at least give you a solid glimpse of his mind at work.
And for the record, this video IS related to this post, as it is a direct response to it
Considering i know of the contexts of these quotes (after watching said video), i don’t consider him crossing a line. We all know on here the internet is fuelled by hateful bile at times, and that reflects on our videos, blogs or social networking posts, because it affects us on that level, either through experience, or just morals. I`m damn sure each and everyone of you here, including myself has said something on the internet or in person to someone and said something pretty darn hurtful and regretted it, and even moreso after god-knows-how-many-years it can be dredged up again against a person and taken out of context to try and mar a persons name, even if they have apologised for that same action time and time again.
I know what i say here may have been said once before, but “i was young” i feel is a fair defense for something that was said at a heated time (with other things going on adding to someones frustrations), people change, and people regret past actions.
Atheist is just one singular part of a person, but you cannot be ousted from it even if the rest want it to happen, its a part of that persons belief system, and there are many other parts to a person which will come at odds with other peoples morality, beliefs, political beliefs and all the other things which people ultimately take a side on.
This is more an address to Greta, rather than the commentors
Whilst the majority of TAA fans may be going along the same lines of defense, might that not clue you in that each and every unique comment (and since they are moderated and removed by yourself, so no others can see) there MIGHT be something to that opinion).
And whilst i can understand your “references” are from other Blogs, to me that doesnt state an actual fact, in fact it is more akin to “Chinese Whispers”, why not actually speak to TJ, as he does invite debates regularly via Drunken Peasents (and some are a really good watch to see how both sides tick).
And if this quote goes moderated, i can only assume you wish to paint all TAA fans as unreasonable bigoted people, as you portray TJ here, whilst in fact the majority of his fans are actually very well meaning people, as well as TJ himself. YES he has douchebag moments, but i`m pretty darn sure everyone else has too, an outburst which we regret etc etc.
Moderating all the comments to color your opinion more is arrogant and i`ve got to say pathetic in my eyes, it is akin to Anita Sarkessian (unsure if i got her last name spelt right) and her inability to invite debate and opinion from the other side of the coin.
If you are a person who wants to appear open minded, do not moderate, let it all flood in, debate what matters, ignore what doesnt, its what your commenters will do too and it all in all will equal a healthy debate and exchange of opinions.
TJ made a response video. [link to TAA video that I'm not going to link to -GC]
After seeing TJs response I have to say you are really just jumping on the TJ hate train to get views. You clearly misrepresented him and deserve no credit for your lies.
The amazing Atheist rebuttal: [link to TAA video that I'm STILL not going to link to: I'm sure people can easily find it if they want to see it, but I'm not giving him space in my blog - GC]
You guys have no idea who you are talking about, TJ is literally one of the most reasonable guys I have ever seen. I’ve seen everyone of his videos and not one of them shows him being a “devoted misogynist.” If you think this guy is a terrible person, that is because you probably heard it from someones biased opinion, and therefore made it your own biased opinion without knowing what kind of content he actually puts on his channel. By the way Greta, he has made a video replying to this article, here’s the link:
[link to TAA video that I'm really and truly not going to link to -GC]
It’s hard to keep hope in humanity when I see people who can’t think critically into anything even if their own lives were on the line.
Greta, if you honestly believe TJ is a misogynist even after seeing his video response to you, then all I have to say is you are deluded by your own biased opinion. Which isn’t surprising seeing that most humans do that, but it’s funny how the only evidence you have of him being a misogynist is comments he made in a flame war YEARS back. Do you know how much a person changes in only one year? Quite a bit, also whats with everyone saying that just because he was younger back then it doesn’t excuse him, what? So all of you are perfect beings that haven’t said one horrible thing in the past to someone who has made you angry? Sure.
Being banned after 1 comment when i didn’t even use profane language is basically telling me I win. Thank you for the validation
GC, I find it strange that you consider my comment ‘extreme’. I’m not sure why you deemed necessary to ban me, but it’s most likely because I disagree with you.
Anyway, let me restate my point: I consider your position on the issue absolutely unacceptable. No words that cause no consequences should ever be punishable. If someone wants to express himself in the way TJ does, he should be able to. And if some special snowflakes are offended by it, then they have to deal with it (it’s not that you’d engage yourself in anything related to TJ without expecting this).
Your attempts to limit someone’s right to free speech because they cross the line you think should not be crossed, in my opinion, hurt society as a whole. The line is where real consequences are involved. Before that anything is possible and acceptable. People should stop worrying about empty words and hurt feelings and start worrying about real problems.
This is not about TJ. It’s about free speech.
I find it strange that you consider my comment ‘extreme’. I’m not sure why you decided to ban me, but it’s probably because I disagree with you. Anyway, it’s not about TJ.
Let me restate my point: I consider your position on the issue absolutely unacceptable. No words that cause no consequences should ever be punishable. If someone wants to express himself in the way TJ does, he should be able to. And if some special snowflakes are offended by it, then they have to deal with it (it’s not that you’d engage yourself in anything related to TJ without expecting this).
Your attempts to limit someone’s right to free speech because they cross the line you think should not be crossed, in my opinion, hurt society as a whole. The line is where real consequences are involved. Before that anything is possible and acceptale. People should stop worrying about empty words and hurt feelings and start worrying about real problems.
He apologized and said it was out of anger and they were made in a certain context. While that doesn’t justify or excuse his actions, maybe it would be a good idea to address his recognition of his error and apology? I’m not trying to debate, I’d just like to see something positive come out of this rather than the typical us vs them comments and division.
Except that he didn’t apologize. He didn’t accept the terms of the person to whom he owed amends. His response was a classic “not-pology” (“I’m sorry you thin-skinned feminists took it that way. Toughen up and learn how to take a joke!”)
Maybe because the terms of that apology where completely unreasonable.
He apologized and said it was out of anger and they were made in a certain context. While that doesn’t justify or excuse his actions, maybe it would be a good idea to address his recognition of his error and apology? I’m not trying to debate, I’d just like to see something positive come out of this rather than the typical us vs them comments and division.
Except that he didn’t apologize. He didn’t accept the terms of the person to whom he owed amends. His response was a classic “not-pology” (“I’m sorry you thin-skinned feminists took it that way. Toughen up and learn how to take a joke!”)
Maybe because the terms of that apology where completely unreasonable.
… shows he doesn’t give a damn about women, feminists, or rape survivors. I guess he thinks PTSD is some made up feminist conspiracy to keep the manly men from expressing their inherent “right” to be as offensive and hurtful as possible.
What right do you think you have not to be offended? None. The most you can do is ignore it.
I find it pretty ironic that the comments are censored/deleted on a site called “freethoughblogs”…
I don’t agree with your position Greta, I think you’re just falsely labeling TJ to get attention.
Interesting Critique of feminism:
[link to complete bullshit, not-at-all interesting critique of straw feminism which I'm not going to link to - GC]
“…why would you support the work of an avowed misogynist, who has publicly and unapologetically stated his opinion that women he disagrees with should be raped, and who makes public rape threats against them (visible to other rape victims, I’ll point out), in brutal, graphic detail?”
I agree, we should not support misogynists or people unapologetic about making rape threats.
The problem is, TJ is neither a misogynist, nor unapologetic about his comments.
TJ is for gender equality. He is for women’s rights. He is anti-misogynist, anti-bigotry. His content repeatedly attacks conservative and right-wing religious and social views, which regularly includes standing up for gay rights and women’s rights and progressive/liberal ideals in general. He has stated he has donated to Planned Parenthood, is pro-choice repeatedly and is above all else a self-professed gender egalitarian.
I highly encourage a dialogue with him, because he does hold far more in common with your views than the straw man version of him you have constructed in this blog post.
[link to TAA video, which I still am not linking to - GC]
TAA explains where all the cherry picked comments come from.
All of you act so superior lol, it’s so adorable. But whatever if you guys think TJ is a misogynist rapist, go right ahead. He doesn’t need to prove anything to you so why am I trying to prove something. This is me throwing in the towel, it seems there are an abundance of people who live perfect lives in which they have never harmed anyone else’s ego before. Peace.
Seriously? You are just going guess his critical thinking is lacking? With no evidence outside of few comment made her by fan’s of his. That is unfair and not critical thinking on your behalf. This guy TJ has 500,000+ subscribers on YouTube. His audience very diverse when it comes to educational level and maturity. With a audience that large. Much larger then what is observed here. You will get more troll’s and comments with it. It’s a nuisance yes but that shouldn’t be what he is solely judge by. On top of that many of his audience use English as second language. So it can be harder to convey proper grammar and writing. Like me.
Even if you dislike his style and the way he presents him self. I challenge you to argue his critical thinking is lacking. The fact that this blog must edit comment with links to simple and well though out rebuttal video is serious sign. That the author and audience is more close minded then they will admit. You realize your fighting a full generation of a online collective. Look to the past. Many are pushing foreword while you insult without even reading this man’s argument.
Brilliant thoughtfulness on your behalf.
I should note being new to this author. She has some interesting books and over all positive looking outlook from what I have read so far. Even talking on daring topics …well daring 20+ year’s ago. I like that. It’s just seems fitting a particular era/ personal zeitgeist is more important then challenging this man’s actual beliefs.
I do not understand.
When did the world become such a horrible place that we have to take what everyone says as unadulterated fact? It is usually unlikely that anyone would come to your house and murder you, unless they were psychologically unstable. It is also very unlikely for anyone to actually go out and rape someone for a comment that was made in a discussion board.
In fact I do not think the Amazing Atheist would ever rape anyone.
The line to me is drawn between where hurtful/extremely offensive things approach what actually exists in reality.
Kind of like unicorns. I may say unicorns exist, but I do not believe unicorns exist. It is a moot an invalid statement that either deserves to be laughed at or ridiculed solely because the operator in the sentence is not the words themselves but the context and intention of the statement. But if I genuinely believe that unicorns exist and I let that affect my life in very extreme ways then that does deserve to be addressed. At that point I would probably need mental help. Or something.
“I am going to rape you so hard that your intestines fall out.” Is always a reprehensible thing to say. But it becomes infinitely more reprehensible if I’m saying it to a human being I have tied up in my basement compared with saying it to one of my friends in a fit of rage. And of course knowing my friends they would probably laugh at me because, well, shock value.
Does that mean I support rape? Fucking. No. Jesus…
Although I don’t find his remarks all that funny, TAA was obviously joking. I don’t think a few cherry picked quotes from years ago are grounds to completely shun the man and all of his work. He has a lot of interesting videos and makes good points. He obviously made a mistake saying all those things, but you’ve definitely made this a bigger deal than it is. How much harm have those words actually caused? They’re so vulgar that they lose their bite. TJ is not a misogynist, and he makes this very clear. It just makes me mad when I go on this blog and feel hated just because I think the guy is pretty fun to watch. I don’t think he crossed the line, because he was being over the top on purpose, and everyone on here knows damn well he wasn’t serious.
TJ doesn’t hate women, he just hates feminism. I’m not saying he’s infallible, but he knows how to construct a rational argument and back it up with evidence. He’s not as bad as everyone on here is saying.
In flame war the goal is to piss off or hurt your opponent. And the best way to do that is attack their weakness. If your target were a homophobe you might suggest he’s a closet homosexual, without it implying you consider being called gay a insult. You might call an overweight person fat, despite being overweight yourself. And if you’ve been hurt, or pissed off enough by an anonymous alleged rape victims comments you’ll say you hope they get raped again even if you were raped yourself, and/or consider it the most hideous thing that can happen to a person. It doesn’t imply you would actually want to see that happen, it doesn’t imply you approve of rape, and it doesn’t imply you would rape someone.
Do you really not understand this Greta?
As Greta points out above she’s only allowing the extreme comments from TAA’s supporters to pass through moderation. Which of course unfairly (intentionally or unintentionally) misrepresents them.
(Note from Greta on this one: Actually, the comments being posted here are not the extreme ones — they are the middle-ground ones, the ones that don’t pass my comment policy but that don’t qualify as abusive enough to get posted-and-banned under the #mencallmethings hashtag. But this is a fair point — if this is to be a collection of all the comments from TAA’s supporters, it should include all of them. I’ll go ahead and post all those comments, including the ones that did pass comment moderation, and the ones that got banned for abusiveness. Note: This means comments will be posted out of chronological order.)
(name redacted, as it was posted on Facebook, where people have a slightly higher expectation of privacy)
“I can, I just agree with everything in this video. I can say the same about you liking this cunts page as well”
1st off im a big fan of the amazing atheist what you got to do it dont let other peoples opinions bother you as they do not concern you at all i am a atheist myself and i know how the word rape is spread about but remember dont mess with other people that you dont even know just cos you got butthurt from something they said i know how real rape is and i hate when someone is raped but remember TJ was using words just words
so go home make me a sandwich and stop making good people look bad
Can we get a complete shun list now, so we don’t accidentally link to the wrong people?
Surely TJ isn’t the only standard walked past.
So I guess that’s a “no” to the canonical list then? Too bad.
Oh dear. People like the Amazing Atheist are, to put it bluntly, attention-seekers, and, to a certain extent, this blog post has fallen into the trap, as seen in one comment – ‘I had never heard of him until now’. He appeals to a certain audience – proclaiming he is an atheist in Europe would get him no attention at all, yet in North America, with all its fundamentalists, he is likely to create a following.
YouTube channels get paid. So he needs traffic. And what better way to gain traffic than to cause outrage? Every time something is said about rape, a few hundred more people will pay attention. But the ridiculous thing is that the complainers don’t realise that they are doing him a favour and so, as is shown here, he gains more and more attention, almost exponentially.
Try it. Say something sensible and nobody comes to a blog or channel. Mention some controversy and people arrive. You’re caught in a trap – urge a shunning, and more people get interested. It’s the way the Internet works.
You asked if there is any line to cross. Not on the interwebz there ain’t.
I may allow myself a laugh though. ‘Shunning’ is a very religious thing to do, the Amish and the JWs being just a few who do it, along with most cults. Is atheism just becoming a religion without a God?
‘What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.” (Corinthians).
Newton was an asshole and an arrogant prick, an alchemist, and an author of a “rape manual”, so objects don’t actually have inertia and gravitational forces are actually proportional to the inverse cube of the distance between bodies. Besides, mechanics is formulated in terms of masculine rigid bodies and can’t properly address fluid mechanics due to its internal misogyny. Also, Laplace worked under the imperialist colonialist Napolean.
I’ve heard some people say Einstein was a misogynist. Assuming that’s true, time and space can’t be relative and they certainly can’t have any curvature. Also, don’t forget that E = mc^2 is a “sexed” equation because it privileges the speed of light.
For any people worried that denying the relativity of space vindicates Newton and thus makes me seem inconsistent, don’t worry. Logic is an invention of Aristotle, a raging misogynist, so it can be safely ignored.
Electromagnetisms founders seem okay so far, but the name for electricity does come from Greek, so they may have hated women after all.
Kelvin was an elitist and probably a racist so thermodynamics is on shaky ground. Also, Boltzmann committed suicide, so you can’t necessarily trust statistical mechanics either, unless Gibbs is able to save it.
Heisenberg was a Nazi, therefore it is possible to simultaneously measure non-commuting observables, and matrices have no place in quantum mechanics.
Feynman was a womanizer and his adviser, Dirac, was an anti-social recluse, therefore path integrals are not a legitimate technique. Quantum electrodynamics is still okay, because even though Dyson is a Christian and Feynman a womanizer, I can’t find any dirt on Schwinger or Tomonaga.
Turing was a male homosexual, and we all know the documented evidence of gay male privilege, as well as gay male misogyny. The Redstockings, some of the most important early feminists, clearly demonstrated that male homosexuality is a pretend form of sexual practice designed to marginalize, hate, or avoid women. Its entire basis is the hatred of women. We can see this in the permissiveness and even celebration of homoeroticism in ancient Greece, one of the most misogynistic cultures of all time. You’re all just lucky that Ada Lovelace existed, although she was an aristocrat, so I’m not sure we can really use computers. After all, computers clearly inherited her classist origins, as poor people have less access to computers and the internet. Until computers and internet access are free to all, they can’t shake off their intrinsically anti-proletariat character.
Weinberg is an unabashed supporter of Israel and Salam was a hypocritical Muslim, so electroweak unification is wrong, despite experimental confirmation.
A lot of Indians work on string theory, and most of them are part of the Brahman caste, which is a superior caste that has oppressed the lower classes for thousands of years and still does today. A lot of the other important work on strings comes from American Jews, who are mostly Ashkenazim and tend to look down on and marginalize the Sephardim and Mizrahim. They also mostly support Israel, which is an evil place, so string theory is clearly wrong.
Krauss has been accused of a lot of sexual harassment so all of modern cosmology is out the window.
I’ve just stuck mostly to physics, and even there I’ve only scratched the surface. Need I bring up the personal failures of historically important mathematicians, philosophers, chemists, biologists, doctors, etc.? I could easily do so. If we’re going to embrace the genetic fallacy, why not go all the way?
It seems I forgot an apostrophe. Good thing English grammar is a classist, hierarchical structure designed to oppress racial and economic underclasses by marginalizing their vernacular.
k. Let’s explain the world of the interwebz a bit more, as there seems to be slight criticism of me saying that this article gives him attention.
The very act of attacking him and shunning him gives him exactly what he wants – it’s simply troll behaviour. His name will appear in Google searches etc., and people will pop over to have a peek at his channel. btw – it’s not subscribers who bring in revenue, it’s viewers and commenters, so if you go there and have a row, it earns him money.
He has proven that shocking language gets attention. Well done for that. So what are you gonna do? I’ve seen a couple of his vids – thousands of views and hundreds of arguments. Brilliant marketing by him. And it’s well known that telling someone off on the Internet makes them stop. lol.
Sooo….shun him? ‘This thread is warning people like you who may not be aware of TAA that he’s a misogynist’. Sooooo…..I go and check on someone I never knew existed.
‘So Philip’s solution to the promotion of people who do and say abhorrent things is for those opposed to abhorrent things to shut the fuck up. ‘ Basically, yes. In this instance, raising a hullabaloo is what this guy wants – something you appear not to understand. It’s just a weird online fact – the more anti stuff you express, the more shit you give, the more his power grows! Every time you slag him off, another nutter will wade in to argue – more attention.
‘Philip – nope. The whole “ha ha, he only wants attention and you gave it to him” thing is a bucket full of holes. Have you ever been told “ignore the bully and he’ll stop”? Did it ever work? No, it didn’t. Never has, never will’
See above. Get it through your head – this ain’t real life! Think of it this way: you go out there and bully him back, or whatever you do, and he GAINS from it, financially in that his channels get more traffic, and mentally because he’s succeeded in yanking your chain. Really – just try to grasp that. He’s basically a troll, and surely everyone knows Rule 1 about trolls: don’t feed them!
btw if you want to see some truly decent trolling just Google my name alongside ‘Amanda’. I need some attention!!!!
I don’t give a shit about TAA, but the genetic fallacy is either acceptable or it isn’t. There’s no cutoff where someone’s contributions are important enough that we can ignore our logic. That’s special pleading. Either everything somebody does becomes tainted by their badness, or none of it does and it all must be evaluated on its own merit. The middle is excluded. My incredibly sarcastic and condescending post was an attempt to mock the sort of magical thinking inherent in the genetic fallacy that I see being put forward here. Feel free to exclude someone you don’t like. Feel free to disregard anything that comes from them as if it were infected, though I will mock such superstitious behavior. But don’t you dare be inconsistent.
Anyone who knows anything about TJ, the amazing atheist, should know by now that this is not a secret. He has addressed these quotes and the convesation they took place in several times and people use it to attack him constantly. To answer your question, I don’t think this is an occaision to draw lines, I really don’t think TJ did anything wrong. You guys are talking about shunning and whatever forms of social punishment but do any if you think about the context in which these words took place? Why don’t you look up any of the several times this has been talked about and get some perspective before you jump to conclusions and talk about “shunning” someone from the internet. This is just ridiculous. My question for you is: where do you draw the line? How long can and will you attack someone for one mistake, one argument that got out of hand and (conveniently) you won’t even look at the other side of. Enough. Why won’t anyone address real problems like the lines feminists (like the ones involved) cross, giving feminism a bad name.
So wait, The Amazing Atheist raped someone or was about to rape someone?
I must have misread the context. I thought he was just portraying the boisterous and offensive character he always plays when addressing people he finds stupid.
Hooray for taking things out of context! Hooray for suggesting an entire society turn their back on a fellow because that person said something mean even though they obviously have no intention of doing those means things! Hooray for treating victims like children and trying to censor anything that may cause them the slightest discomfort! Hooray for taking something we all find offensive and broadening the spectrum wide enough to fight anything at all related it with politically-correct neo-puritanical rigor! Hooray for not understanding that comedy sometimes means taking those things that frighten us and turning it into a joke!
Thank you for taking the time to talk about The Amazing Atheist instead of doing something that might actually lead to social change. I’ve read enough of these articles to know that the change your trying to lead us towards is a religion in it’s own right.
The line that shouldn’t be crossed is plucking lines from a conversation, without context, to fit your needs, much like most Christians do with the bible.
I just want to make something clear: atheism is in no way related to feminism! AA happens to be an atheist and at the same time he’s not a supporter of feminism, but this should in no way reflect on his religious (or rather non-religious) beliefs. That is regarding the question at the end of this article.
On a second note, it is very easy to take some phrases totally out of context to make them appear as offensive as possible. I am not saying they are not offensive…but I think they’re offending the wrong people!
I have watched many of TJ’s videos and most of the time, when it’s about feminism, I see him refuting some unstable, high-arsed woman, who is bitching about how feminism isn’t being taken seriously. All the while she brings to our attention the major flaws in society that make feminism needed: how rape is ok (where the hell did any of you see that rape is ok in any western country, or in Europe? I think Africa is the only place where rape is still considered ok and guess what? Feminism isn’t there!), how abuse is ok (again, it is not, it is against the law, what more do you want) and how women are sexualized in magazine covers. How can you think about a problem as serious as rape or sexual abuse then come back to magazine covers??
Wanna know what makes me angry the most? That the people bitching about how hard it is to be a sexual abuse victim, how misunderstood they all are, have NEVER gone through that experience! And how can that not be insulting to the woman who has been sexually abused at some point in her life and then she sees some bitch with a pole up her ass taking offense for HER trauma?
I am a woman, I am self-secured and I do not take offense to every pussy joke I hear, for every half naked woman I see on magazine covers or on the streets and not even to “threats” like the ones AA made. Why? Because they’re not directed at me! They’re directed to the people who destroy feminism by making it about stopping women from being seen as attractive, cause it’s offensive. Well, it’s not. To me it isn’t. And before feminists make statements for the whole female sex maybe they should actually ask how many of them actually feel that way.
If I feel offended by something, I can stand up for myself. I don’t need a support group from half around the world to take offense for me and speak in my name.
On a closing note, I ask, just like TJ asked in one of his videos, just how is feminism going to solve all these rape, sexual abuse and whatever problems? Are they going to make a petition on Facebook? Tweet about it? Bitch to other people about it? Feminism has no legal standing. Leave the fighting about such matters to the people who can do something about it. Also, please keep in mind that AA works in the entertainment business. That means he will often exaggerate with his statements in order to prove a point and to increase his audience.
I think there is no line. Free speech means you can say what you want to who you want. I also feel the OP is taking this man way to seriously. He’s more or less mocking the fact that feminists claim all these ways to fix the supposed “rape culture” in society when in reality they are simply trying to change the paradigm from patriarchy to matriarchy. That’s it. …and tbh I don’t even really see a patriarchy anymore. Maybe in the parts where some of you live you do, but as for me everything seems pretty fair (or as fair as they could possibly be). Men and women work the same jobs for the most part, I see more women managers at most places then men. The only places where women don’t really succeed like men would be in more harsh working environments, and let’s be honest…that makes sense. But tell me who is more likely to be hired on as someone at a desk nowadays…i’d say the women. Who is more likely to get a higher position in any company…many would claim “the man” but i’d claim “the better qualified one”. The one with the degree, the one with the exp, the one that presents themselves best. That’s who. Has nothing to do with gender unless the person hiring is themselves, a sexist (goes for both men and women).
Another problem with rape culture is that it only applies to women. Apparently from a feminists point of view, men can’t be raped. Also, all men are rapists. (yes i’m talking specifically about the extremist feminist, but who do you think sets the policies for what they all believe). It’s just silly. The sad truth is if you classify yourself as any kind of “ist” you are truly racist/sexist to some other group and you’re scum who is not capable of looking at things logically. That’s what the “ist” actually means…a set of beliefs that promotes your views over others, that are typically bad for people in general. Maybe we should all just stop saying we’re this or that and say we’re people. Stop trying to censor others. (no I don’t think the guy is over board on anything. He says what he wants and anyone should be free to do so. You should take a look at some of the things others (feminists) have said to him and you might see why he “mocks” them. Their dumb. Their minds have been rotted by a belief system that makes no sense. That goes for all religions/racists/sexists/feminazis/paganists/zionists/socialist/fascists/(insert any bullshit here).
They’re all dumb, they’re all evil in their intents as a group, and they are all bad for the world and the general population in it. If you want true freedom and fairness you need to all stop “thinking” (if you can call it that) your ways are right and your beliefs are right and realize you are all people who do not have the capacity to EVER set policy that effects other human beings. You’re incapable. You’re biased. You’re ability to think logically has been tainted by you religious and social beliefs and you’re not fair. Fairness is saying what you want when you want. Fairness is not causing harm to one another. Fairness is the right to protect yourself. Fairness is having real elections with many choices(not 2), not affected by money, not concerned with social issues, not letting groups (like feminists, the super rich, (once again, insert bullshit group here) affect the outcomes. That’s fair. …and you all sit around worried about what some internet personality is doing. I bet he’s laughing his ass off at this cause he’s thinking the same way I am while you’re worried “Is anyone else offended”…good, be offended, it’s good for you. I hope someone here exercises logical thought. Have a good day all.
Naw, that guy’s alright. He’s just a bit too passionate.
While the so-called ‘Amazing Atheist’ is obviously not that amazing, it’s fair to say that PZ Myers and his Pharyngula munchkins engage in their fair share of goonish behaviour. No-one who has engaged with these people could seriously call them liberal or tolerant, and yet the always seem to occupy the moral high ground, at least in their own shrivelled minds. What a sad clusterfuck this is.
tonyinbatavia #169: I have not claimed that the behaviour exhibited by this Kincaid moron is equivalent to Myers and his flying monkeys. Having survived maximum security prison (and numerous other zany adventures) I’m hardly going to have a breakdown because someone was a bit rude in a weblog’s comment section. I maintain however that the Myers clique is aggressive and intolerant of people with different worldviews.
SallyStrange #170: Being intolerant of bigotry is not the same as bombastic self-righteousness, which is what I detect at Pharyngula.
I would disagree with Great American Satan in that the best moral systems are those that are based on universal principles (including the expansion of ethical consciousness to include the entire biosphere, as expounded by Jeremy Rifkin). That’s where “concern for traditionally oppressed parties” becomes problematical.
Jews are the best example of an oppressed people who had that addressed, in part, by being given their own State. Now we have children playing soccer on the beach being turned into mincemeat and a despised, nuclear-armed garrison state that has threatened to nuke the entire globe if it is attacked in a serious way.
SallyStrange #175: I stated clearly that there was no equivalence in the behaviour of someone like Kincaid and the bombast of someone like PZ Myers. Nobody could sincerely believe that I claim that rudeness is on a par with rape threats.
I find it an important distinction. It is the difference between accepting such concepts as ‘all men are created equal’ or ‘non-parallel lines will eventually cross’ as unquestionable dogma versus accepting them as premises to build upon while recognizing that they can be questioned and even discarded in some situations.
It also seems as relevant a difference for this discussion as that between ‘doubt’ and ‘pseudo-doubt’.
Given your quotes above from AA, I can understand not wanting to see any of his work. I certainly don’t have any problem with people who choose not link to his videos, review his book, etc. I don’t want to be around people who act like that and will avoid interacting with them when possible.
My questions and concerns about your post relate to responding to those who do not shun – i.e. people like the Friendly Atheist who shared a video from AA that did not contain any objectionable material. Although I appreciate your making it clear that FA has indicated he was, prior to sharing the creationist parody video, unaware of the behavior of the AA that is deserving of shunning, I think the question remains regarding those who would not shun AA but merely require that he not exhibit the atrocious behavior when they are together.
In the Amish community (the only one I’m aware of that regularly practices formal shunning), failure to abide by a shunning decree may result in being shunned. Given the many posts on FTB about how the rifts are not deep enough or wide enough and your own statement that neutrality is not acceptable, what are you proposing should be the result when someone does? Are they to be shunned as well? If not, what other sanctions are you thinking of?
Supporting someone’s work when they’ve acted abhorrently means there are no consequences….Promoting people’s work who engage in this behavior is tolerating it. And tolerating this behavior helps perpetuate it……When you support and promote the work of someone who makes rape threats, you are tolerating rape threats
I have some disagreement with this idea. Is shunning the only possible consequence for abhorrent behavior? I don’t think that promoting people’s work is necessarily tolerating unacceptable behavior. For starters, the person may be unaware of the unacceptable behavior. Second, linking to a video is not the same as inviting a person to interact with others in the community, so I view it differently than inviting such a person to be speaker at a conference. Third, the quotes you provide above attributed to AA can be considered a form of promotion. (As the saying goes, no publicity is bad publicity.) Your quoting him cannot be construed as an implicit toleration of his behavior. So context is clearly important in determining what constitutes unacceptable promotion of someone’s work.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. I appreciate your clarifications.
Beth @ #39: You may overlooked the part of this post where I said that shunning is an extreme measure, and a last resort. Given that, do you seriously think I advocate shunning people simply for not shunning the same people I do?
That was a concern of mine. As I indicated before, in communities that use shunning, it’s not unusual to also shun those who don’t comply with a decision to shun someone. Thank you for letting me know that isn’t something you would support. Your answer to my question regarding other sanctions was very reasonable.Second, linking to a video is not the same as inviting a person to interact with others in the community
Of course linking to someone’s video is inviting them to interact with others in the community. Our community exists online as well as in the flesh — more so, in many ways. When you say “Hey, check out this guy’s video,” you’re encouraging others to interact with that person.
My apologies. I meant to make a distinction between on-line and in the flesh interactions but did not phrase it well. You have a valid point regarding on-line interactions.
Greta #97: What else do you think we mean when we talk about shunning?
I think moderated online forums should block him (and for the record, I think all online forums should be moderated), and I think conferences and in-person groups should ban him, not just from speaking, but from attending. Isn’t that what you mean by “banned from safe spaces”?…What — specifically — do you imagine we’re recommending here that you disapprove of?
I am concerned about the idea that people who say such things should be banned from safe spaces. I think that it should be made clear that those kind of threats and insults are not acceptable conduct. If they cannot keep from saying such things, I agree that they should be ejected and banned. But banning people for unacceptable conduct they engage in elsewhere? I’m not so sure about that.
I do not wish to defend the quoted remarks that TAA has made. On the other hand, I generally require only that people not engage in such conduct around me, not that they never ever say anything offensive. I think it is important to recognize that there are subcultures in America where such language is considered acceptable. (I think the threats TAA made would be recognized as rhetorical overstatement not a serious indication of what he would do within that subculture.) The members of these subcultures are typically predominately young and male. Gamer culture would be an example.
I fully support that organizations reject those subculture norms and make it clear that such behavior/language is unacceptable. I suspect that TAA, like most people who participate in such subcultures, can understand and respect that such behavior is not acceptable other places and behave appropriately when it is required.
As SallyStrange and Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- others have pointed out: This is not about punishment — except insofar as “punishment’ means “demonstrating that actions have consequences.” This is about making our spaces safe for women. And this is about having basic ethical values, and being willing to stand by them.
I think that requiring people to abide by these standards of behavior in safe spaces and shunning those who do not is quite reasonable.
Are you really and truly saying that the atheist community as a whole, or that any subset of the atheist community, has a moral obligation to include someone who repeatedly trivializes rape and makes graphic, brutal rape threats?
A moral obligation to include them? No. But you seem to be making the case for a moral obligation to exclude them – i.e. shunning. A community has an obligation to do is to make clear the standards of behavior for that community and enforce them. Banning participation by those who will not abide by those standards within the community is perfectly reasonable. The case for banning participation by those who choose not to abide by those standards when participating in other communities is not as clear.
This is where context does make a difference. If someone is making such threats in spaces where they are clearly not acceptable and welcome, then such shunning seems reasonable. If someone is making such threats in spaces where such rhetoric is acceptable, that’s different. If they can control themselves and behave acceptably when it is required, then banning them from the community is not appropriate.
Gilliell #90 (response to quints): Btw, you’re advocating for clearly labelled unsafe spaces. Are you aware of that? Every space in which you allow abusers becomes an unsafe space. It means that people who have been victimised and who are likely targets have to stay away. It means that you RE excluding them. Tell me, what horrible crime have those people commited to deserve that?
I think that it is appropriate to have clearly labelled unsafe spaces. Just as many women want ‘safe spaces’ where they are free from such intimidation and threats, I think that many men want ‘unsafe spaces’ where they are free to say anything they want, express their harshest feelings in over-the-top rhetoric or discuss currently socially unacceptable ideas without fear of being silenced or banned for participation in discussions others find repugnant. I don’t think that people who participate in ‘unsafe spaces’ and say things there that are not acceptable elsewhere should be considered ‘predators’ or ‘abusers’ and universally banned from ‘safe spaces’.
Greta #118: Maybe I need to flesh that out more: This is not a step to be taken lightly. This is not a step to be taken frequently. This is not a step to be taken without trying more moderate alternatives first. And this is not a step to be taken without excellent reason. But you haven’t engaged in any real way with the question of how we’re supposed to include people into our communities who make rape threats, without making rape victims or potential rape victims feel excluded and unsafe. As Al Dente said @ #108, you haven’t offered us any alternative.
How about banning the behavior, but waiting until someone violates that standard within the community before banning the person?
I would argue that their presence makes a space unsafe in itself, even if they “behave themselves”*…*which usually means to keep going where officials don’t see them
I can understand feeling that way about people who threaten others. I don’t want to be around people who threaten me either. But I would disagree that their presence alone, when they are not behaving in acceptable ways, makes a space unsafe. Unpleasant perhaps, but not necessarily unsafe.
If they violate the acceptable behavior standards – even when they do so where the officials don’t see them – then I agree that they make the space unsafe and should not be allowed to participate. It’s the pre-emptive idea of shunning due to behavior elsewhere before they have actually violated the community standards within the community that causes me concern. I will add the caveat that if the behavior elsewhere was also in violation of community standards in that particularly elsewhere, then it would be reasonable to shun them as they have demonstrated their unwillingness to abide by the appropriate community standards.
I stopped reading this word vomit when I realized that you don’t bother linking any sort of proof that TJ said these things at all. No links to Tumblr, Youtube, Twitter or any quotes from his book that supports your theory of TJ saying these things. Also even if he did say these things how do we know he didn’t say them to people who had been proven to be lying about their rape. PZ I know you are a huge supporter of the anonymous rape accuser but lets be honest crying rape doesn’t make it so.
Beth @ #174:Are you serious?
First: How do you know that TAA’s threats aren’t serious? Are you psychic?
No, I don’t know that. What I know is that within certain subcultures such over-the-top rhetoric is accepted without being taken seriously.
Second: Even if we conceded that TAA’s threats are likely not “serious” in the sense that we can feel comfortable that he will never actually physically rape anyone — what makes you think that they’re not “serious” in their intent to make women feel threatened and unsafe?
I absolutely think this is his purpose in making such threats. That’s why I agree with you regarding making such behavior unacceptable.
Third, and very importantly: Are you seriously okay with gamer culture staying predominantly male, and staying hostile to women? Seriously?
No, I’m not okay with that. I would expect gamer culture to change with the influx of women. I expect conferences and other community sites would, for the most part, adopt standards that ban such behaviors and participants to learn that they cannot behave that way in those places. At the same time, I am also not okay with telling a subculture that they must change their culture in order to make their space safe for people who are not okay with that behavior. If they want a freewheeling unsafe space, they have the right to set their standards differently.
Which brings me to the crux of your point: Why are you okay with ceding any culture or subculture to people who hate women and make rape threats?*
Because I think everybody deserves to create and participate in the subculture they want even if I or others find them despicable. I’m perfectly willing to cede the culture of the KKK to people who hate blacks. As long as I am not forced to participate in their subculture and they accept and abide by the required standards of behavior when in community spaces, I can live with them having a subculture that I don’t want to participate in.
When there are cultures that tolerate hatred of women and rape threats, two things happen. 1: Women obviously don’t feel welcome in those cultures — and when those cultures make up a significant part of the world (as they currently do), it marks huge areas of the world as unsafe and unwelcome for women.
Yes, you are right, it marks huge areas of the world as unsafe and unwelcome for women. I don’t have any problem with attempts to change such cultures. I think it will be necessary for them to change if they want to be continue to be part of the larger society. But if a group doesn’t want to be part of the larger society, if they are not interested in attracting women or minorities or people without the fortitude to tolerate their culture, then shunning will not be effective.
2: Those cultures serve as places where misogynists support general hatred and hostility towards women, and indeed orchestrate harassment and hate campaigns outside that culture. 4Chan is a perfect example, as is the SlymePit.
I’m not terribly familiar with either of those places/groups, knowing them only by reputation which tells me they aren’t places I want to be. From the Christian POV, many atheist spaces are considered places where harassment and hate campaigns against the religious are orchestrated. It’s reasonable to have limits on acceptable behaviors in public spaces. It’s not reasonable to insist that every space follow those same rules.
The idea that people who spew misogynist hatred and rape threats will politely keep their bile behind clearly marked-off lines, and will not carry that hatred outside of those lines, is bollocks.
I agree that is an issue and not everyone will be able to stay on their best behavior. But most people are able to adjust their behavior to the standards of the community they are participating in. I don’t think organizations should ban people from participation or attendance due to the expectation that they will be incapable of appropriate behavior, which is how I interpreted your objection to my suggestion that people actually commit inappropriate behavior in a venue before they are banned from that venue or ones with similar behavioral standards.
Yes, I understand that there are subcultures in America where hateful, threatening, misogynist language is considered acceptable. I am trying to change that.
You have my support for that. Recognizing that such subcultures exist and marginalizing those that won’t change via shunning those subcultures is very appropriate. What I’m not sold on is shunning anyone and everyone who participates in such a subculture. If they can behave themselves when around me and when participating in broader communities with different standards, I don’t think that shunning is required.
You don’t think letting someone in with a pattern of threatening violence makes a space unsafe?
It depends. For example, consider someone with a pattern of threatening or violent rhetoric in a cultural milieu where threats are common and not considered credible. For example: ‘He should be shot’ is a common statement in many subcultures but isn’t considered a threat. Instead, it’s recognized as an expression of extreme disapproval. If the person lacks any history of actual violence and if they accept that they aren’t allowed to give voice to such threats within the space, then no, their presence should not be considered sufficient to make it unsafe for others.
You seem to be saying that as long as people respect the manners of the particular spaces that they’re in, and understand that different spaces have different manners, we can trust them to respect the manners of the space that they’re in. Is that really what you’re saying?
Close. I’m not saying we can trust them. I’m saying we should grant them the opportunity to respect the manners of the space that we jointly share. If they have established that they cannot or will not abide by such standards of behavior then it’s appropriate to shun them. BTW, I think you can still shun or ban TAA by this standard.
Do you honestly claim that I should feel safe in the presence of somebody who thinks that for the positions that I hold
-I should be raped
-should stop complaining about rape ’cause it isn’t fatal
as long as they only take it to Twitter or my door afterwards and not at the venue? )
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that someone who says such things in a venue where it is acceptable is not sufficient reason to ban them from a venue where it isn’t acceptable. If you want to shun them and any venue where they might appear, that seems quite reasonable to me. )
Anyone who takes this blog seriously needs to watch this:
(embedded video removed, and commenter banned — I don’t generally like it when people embed videos in comments, but it is a serious violation of boundaries to embed videos by people I have clearly and repeatedly stated I want nothing to do with. – GC)
Bit dismissive there, eh? Let’s not listen to his opinion because a person who only watched 5 minutes tops of a 27 minute can summarize someone’s opinion.
Really His defense for these comments are (in no particular order or encompassment); he was young, they’re out of context, they’re not serious and they’re just generic insults. He also says that later allegations of racism, sexism and discrimination and falsified and that there is no evidence for it (personally I don’t think those were allegations directed at him, but it was in the video).
If you’re going to be pedantic then no, he also offers no excuse at one point and explains something, then apologizes.
If you want your argument to stand you should take into account the circumstances. There’s a time and a place for everything, including words and context matters. If both sides of an argument are just brainless insults at each other then that’s how they should be taken. It’s like punishing and ostracizing all people that cause GBH out of self defense because you didn’t take into account the other person. Are you really going to hold everyone to account for what they said when they were young adults and not accept an honest apology? Some of the people on this forum are really sheep-like;
“I’ve stayed away from this guy for years, considering the clearly negative reviews I’d read from many sex-positive, humanist, non-asshole bloggers.”
If you really want to know about him you should watch a few of his videos, I can understand if you dislike them (I’m not a huge fan of his silly voices and yelling) but he is for equality. If anything the most controversial thing about him is he thinks people shouldn’t take people’s words so seriously and his lack of long term empathy for victims of various incidents.
I wouldn’t exactly say those quotes were taken out of context, but no context is given.
I watch his channel and from experience, I can tell you that although he can be very vulgar at times, it’s more for shock value and he definitely is not being literal.
Hey Greta….I read your blog about him and a few other things on the net and unsubscribed from him. However, I watched his response video and he does make clarifications on the statements you pointed out in that post. He apologized and said it was out of anger and they were made in a certain context. While that doesn’t justify or excuse his actions, maybe it would be a good idea to address his recognition of his error and apology? I’m not trying to debate, I’d just like to see something positive come out of this rather than the typical us vs them comments and division. I mean after all, isn’t correction of the behavior the reason these things should be pointed out. Shouldn’t realization of the wrongdoing on the part of the one doing it be recognized and commended?
Triple3a….let’s critically look at what you claim to negate the apology of The Amazing Atheist.
“Except that he didn’t apologize. He didn’t accept the terms of the person to whom he owed amends.”
First off, what he said that is currently being used against him as evidence that he is a misogynist, he said in a heated online argument with someone years ago (I can’t remember exactly how many). The very next day, he apologized after realizing his stupidity in the words he used out of anger.
You say he didn’t accept the terms of the person….and what were those terms? For him to delete his entire YouTube channel. To throw out years worth of work and a source of income because he said some words in anger during an online argument.
Are you saying that anytime someone says something stupid that they later regret that it is appropriate for them to throw away their source of income just to prove how sorry they really are? Really? I’m assuming you have said some things in the past that you regretted to another person. If they wanted you to quit your job and start your career completely over, you would have done that? I highly doubt it. Saying that you don’t accept someone’s apology because they didn’t say it or do something in a way that you wanted to is playing games in any aspect.
The mocking voice overs you mentioned that he did for Greta…please be sure to note that he also did the same when reading the quotes from his own supporters.
Your holding it against him that he won’t curtail what he says based on someone’s feelings. Yes, there is a fine line with this, but if you are suggesting that he should do this, then with that logic, so should about 99% of the atheists, skeptics and freethinkers of the world because we say some horrible things about religion and what religious adherents believe. No matter what you say, it will offend someone in someway. This does not cover what he said regarding the rape comments….for which he apologized and admitted was stupid and he regretted saying. Not all people agree with “Gallow’s humor”, but many, many people take part in such humor. I am one of them that doesn’t agree with that humor; however, I know that just because someone throws out such humor it doesn’t mean that they want to do or promote what the joke is about. I could throw out a million examples, but that is not the point. He said in his response video, and as can be seen in other videos of his, that he is against rape, anyone that does it a horrible person, he supports various form of women’s rights (outspokenly so) and these words that he typed YEARS ago in a certain context are now being used to negate everything else he has done and said.
Am I defending what he said….no. Not at all, but I am speaking out against vilifying someone based on small snippets of what they have said in their past and negating whatever they say about those words currently. That is saying that someone should continue to be punished for something they did, no matter what the ‘crime’ was or what was done in retribution. And that is wrong. It becomes vengeance at that point which is irrational.
When I was a teen, being raised by a very devote Catholic mother I said horrible things about LBGT persons. I can clearly remember one time stating that they should all be put on an island and blown up. Did I really believe that? NO! Do I think that way now? NO! It was in a specific context during a specific time in my life and there are many psychological reasons why people say or do things they later regret and to pretend that those reasons don’t exist and that someone can never be excused and that they should eternally suffer for something dumb they have done or said in their past makes me think of Christian beliefs of eternal damnation. We as atheists and freethinkers don’t subscribe to such ridiculousness. The punishment should fit the crime, yes, but the regret and the correction of the behavior is what really matters.
To continue to draw this out and ignore his response borders on sensationalism and just trying to prove someone is right and someone is wrong and in all honesty, only perpetuates irrational behavior.
So, with all this back and forth about what he did or didn’t do then or now….I ask…what is the point and purpose of this outcry? Isn’t it to get an apology, a recognition of what is being done wrong? And how would that best be accomplished? Basic psychology shows that communication is the best, not this rallying the troops to either side which is what is accomplished by the “look what he/she/they did” with no offering of true discussion.
And please note, I did make the point that Gallows humor about rape did not apply to his threats and disgusting behavior to the person in question on the forum. And please also note, that I did not use it as an excuse for his behavior or as justification.
Talking about his apology…as it did or didn’t happen YEARS ago is once again ignoring the main goal of pointing this behavior out! And with that, I revert back to the first paragraph of this reply. What is the point? What would be the desired outcome? Because thus far all I’m hearing is that vengeance is what is wanted…for the community to “exile him” and for him to be shunned. At the risk of sounding sarcastic…..let me know how well that works out for ya!
GOD, feminists and liberals are so goddamn WORTHLESS.
I wish everyone could just ignore these worthless whiners.
Clearly none of you militant fake feminists have ever watched his channel. His intellect and morality surpass most of yours in either field. His vitriol is very understandable. You internet fascists are devoid of any ability to process reason, logic or reasonable debate. You are almost identical to hard line religious nut cases when it comes to these facets of thought. When one attempts proper intellectual discourse with you and nothing but inane garbage is thrown back at you then the only recourse is to try and shock and offend your deluded minds into sanity. I find myself doing this to fundamentalist “feminists” and Christians just as a way of channelling my frustrations. You people are destroying the real feminist movement with your ignorance and giving real intellectual and intelligent women a bad name. More and more people are finding it increasingly difficult to differentiate feminism from you imbeciles with your “rape culture” nonsense. You are the Westboro Baptist Church of Feminism.
Wow, the replies hahahaha. Is that really the intellectual caliber of Greta Christina’s cult members? No wonder she has to delete all the antithetical comments. I think I’m going to become a far right wing, woman raping clergyman just so I’m metaphysically as far away from you coma inducing halfwits as possible.
I’ve been working on my wife trying to convince her that Feminism has become this militant, rape obsessed and victim embracing distortion of it’s former self and she has been arguing with me, saying that you guys only represent a tiny minority of Feminists. Then I showed her this blog and made her aware of Greta Christina’s popularity. It finally convinced her that I was right all along. I’d just like to thank you guys for that!
Greta, Greeto, whatever, what you’re doing is so apparent… that it’s sad. You continue to assail top-viewed atheists so you can step into the spotlight, by doing this, you think you can get more viewers and continue your work on imaginary misogyny, because you know if you go out into the real world you wouldn’t survive or something by your lack of skills. Honestly, now, do you really think you’re helping women? Well, you’re not. Sorry, I didn’t give you time to think about it; I just thought you’d create another lie within your air-filled head.
It’s funny how people get upset over mere words. Does Amazing Atheist joke about rape? Yes. Will he ever rape anyone? No. That’s all. People who don’t get jokes are idiots. People who understand that those are jokes, but think that those jokes are unacceptable, are also idiots, and I am personally sick of social justice warriors like those.
And Amazing Atheist like to makes those jokes because modern feminism in first world countries is mostly bullshit. It’s mostly about sense of entitlement of stupid women. Actual feminism is about fighting for rights of women in countries where women actually don’t have equal rights, like Pakistan. Bitching about jokes is not.
I would not expect a grown ass woman to be so infatile, stupid, and lame. REALLY? Someone should tattoo a giant cock across your face, because you apparently can’t take a fucking joke. Could you be more anal? Do you lose some poop in your pants every time your feminists sense tingles? This A+ pond of scum, is an echo chamber of socially retarded Asperger’s people who have gone undiagnosed an entire life.
You know you are little small Ellliot Rodger clones. He could not take a joke. He was anal. You can’t take a joke. You are anal. So when are you gonna organize a mass shooting of all these Rape Joke people?
Q: Is a Rape Joke ok, if it involves the Holy Virgin Mother Mary? Because thats the only kind of Rape joke that I like. I mean, this woman is basically famous for not having sex before giving birth. Rape is certainly profoundly fun in this scenario… Is it not? Oh, and Remember, if you answer no to my Question, you are all Antisemites. Because you know how Jews like to make Rape jokes about Mary. You don’t want me to send the ADL after your small fish asses. I mean FTB is like a small ADL. Imagine what the big ass full grown ADL could do to your little hairy armpit bloggette?
I challenge you Motherfuckers.
I always find it funny that people will hijack these words that make themselves seem like the good side. Example.. the People’s Republic of China and etc.. Which as we should all know is a terrible place. Now look at this website. The name is freethoughtblogs.com How exactly is this a place of free thought? I’m just wondering because TAA posted a sound rebuttal video. And it just seems that we’re just treating anyone that disagrees with Miss Greta Christina as subhuman rabid dogs…
Being offended by everything is the exact opposite of being empowered. You women must live in hell,
(Editorial note on this one: If you’re trying to convince women that you care about consent and respect boundaries, coming back and commenting on a blog after you’ve been blocked may not be the best way to go about it. -GC)
(Bunny picture by Keraj1976, via Wikimedia Commons.)