Suddenly, my Twitter mentions and email are full of the usual assholes who have found a new bone to chew on. It seems the gamergaters and anti-feminists and alt-right twits have discovered that Sincere Kirabo is the Social Justice Coordinator at the American Humanist Association, and they are freaking out about “Humanism+” and how it must be destroyed. In addition, they’re ranting at me because, in their little minds, I must be behind it all, or am about to step in and take over humanism.
I know this will not matter to people so out of touch with reality, but I’m going to explain it slowly and carefully.
This is nothing new. Humanism has always been concerned with morality and ethics. Social justice is something that has always been a major focus. The American Humanist Association has merely launched new initiatives to specifically pursue social justice for black, LGBTQ, and feminist humanists. If this is surprising to you, well, we already knew you were a bunch of ignorant, regressive loons. This is precisely within the purview of humanism, and always has been, and it would only be unusual if a humanist organization rejected the idea of social justice.
Also, thank you for thinking I must be the mastermind behind a social justice initiative — that’s the kind of reputation I would like to have. However, I have had absolutely nothing to do with this program at AHA, and have no expectation of ever being asked to contribute to it. As for all the kooks calling it Humanism+ pejoratively and comparing it to Atheism+, I had nothing to do with the establishment and support of Atheism+, either, although I do think it was a great idea and that it was unfortunate that it was harassed into hibernation by you jerks.
It was a great idea, and it’s still a great idea — to attempt to make it clear that not all atheists were horrible, awful, rotten people. What seems to be a bad idea is the ongoing effort to make it clear that atheism is the domain of horrible, awful, rotten people, and drive all those who despise reactionary bigotry into the arms of humanism.
At least I like humanism. If you think you can remake it in the nature of YouTube atheism, I don’t think you’re going to succeed.
Oh, Humanism+ is a name that they gave it? I originally thought it must have come from within the group, and thought, yeah, that’s a tactical blooper… also a bit of a weird thing, but maybe they’re just making the human decency angle explicit where it perhaps hadn’t been before? But this is just a case of detractors adding a “+” to it, because “+” means baaaaad? Heh. That’s kind of hilarious.
I guess these are the types who say “I’m a humanist, NOT(!!!!!!) a feminist” though, so they probably have the Pat Roberson definition of humanism in mind, rather than the respect for and support of human dignity stuffs – at least, that’s how I explain the weird reaction I get when I tell them that my humanism implies feminism.
Yeah, it’s bizarre. These are people who have never hung out with AHA, BHA, or IHEU, or they’d know their attitude is antithetical to core principles of any of those groups.
Oh, joy. Here’s a link to the storify by an anti-SJW turd raging about “Humanism+”. The usual suspects are all there. And as usual, they are complaining bitterly about being blocked by people who’ve had enough of their shit.
Christ. Thunderf00t also has a new video, railing against the Reason Rally, because it’s infested with SJWs. They have a code of conduct! They say they’re LGBTQ friendly! These are bad things!
What an asshole.
Good Maude. Apparently these dillholes miss having us for a chew toy so much they’ve decided to invent Atheism+ where it isn’t. God forbid that any PoC, woman, disabled person, LGBTQI person (or any or all of the above) actually take the lead on a thing that affects them. Don’t you know leading the social justice charge is supposed to be the purview of regressive white dudes (who will totally get around to it once they eliminate religion)? That they’re the ones who are supposed to get to decide what matters, and what doesn’t, and that means SJ issues are only allowed to be used as a cudgel against the religious, and turning that lens on oneself or allowing a *gasp* marginalized person to tell them what to work on is tantamount to oppression?
I faint.
At least they can recognize the principles when they seem ’em. Not, you know, internalize, but they can pick them out of a crowd. Sorry, crowd.
It’s really bizarre to me that these pissants are whining about this. Social justice is a core concept of Humanism. The AHA’s definition of Humanism states that (no it doesn’t explicitly say social justice, but it’s reasonable to infer that from the language used):
I also wonder how much of this is them freaking out that a ::gasp:: black man has been named Social Justice Coordinator…
Well, we wouldn’t want to be mistaken for people who give a shit about Not Being an Asshole.
Ugh. In other news about assholes, Markuze is back and spamming the comments here with whines about how he deserves the Amazing Randi’s money again.
All caught by the spam filters, fortunately.
Come on, trolls. Wait another hour, until I get on that plane to Korea. That’s when you start trolling, when you know I won’t be able to catch you for a few hours.
PZ: surely you’ll have wifi on the plane?
Heh, I just read through that storify. Talk about a storm in a teaspoon. I like step 5:
Geddit? ‘Cuz we were always pretending. SJWs, hiding under the beds, waiting to turn atheism away from atheism. SJWs, hiding behind the wall panelling, waiting to turn secularism away from secularism. SJWs, hiding in the kitchenette, waiting to turn masterchef away from food. Muahahaha! It doesn’t get tougher than this!
…err, ok, I admit it, that went in a strange direction.
That’s interesting because when atheism plus first appeared, one of the very first critiques was that it sounded just like secular humanism. For example, see an Blag Hag post from the time.
I always thought one of the compelling arguments for keeping atheism plus independent from humanism was that in practice, self-identified humanists are often not as progressive as organizations’ mission statements would suggest. This story is a case in point.
I like atheism+ because atheism should not simply be the label you use for godless people who are assholes…but it’s fast becoming that way.
I prefer atheism*.
*Because it allows you to expand upon the additions in extensive** footnotes.
**And extensible!
(Also, if you mispronounce it, it becomes Atheism Asterix, which is fucking awesome!
Little whiny assholes must whine or they don’t feel important. If they hurt the feelings of others, and intimidate them into stasis, so much the better. To bad the world will change despite their efforts. They and their irrational fears will be left behind in the rubbish piles.
@1 Athywren
I suspect at least some of that crowd have no idea what humanism actually is, see that it ends with “ism”, starts with “human” and is generally portrayed as a good thing*, and then assume that it must be conflicting with feminism somehow, because it’s about humans in general and not specifically women**. Apparently the idea that one can be a humanist who values the welfare of people in general and simultaneously support movements that fight against specific patterns of discrimination is alien to these people, so that says something about the level of thought they’re putting into this. It doesn’t exactly suggest they’re well informed.
*Inasmuch as people claim it for themselves; it’s not like incessant whining about humanism is anything new.
**Or women at all, in the case of the people who pretty much associate humans with men.
Yes, it appears we have upset quite a few people, especially a satirical article I wrote for TheHumanist.com called “Ban Cisgender White Men From Public Bathrooms: A Modest Proposal.” I’m not sure if I didn’t make the satire obvious enough, or I just hurt a lot of people’s feelings.
Can I just be an atheist AND a humanist? If you need to know more, just ask,
(And despite being rather on the middlin’ radical end of pro “social justice” causes, still being a world class arsehole with no apologies, if you attempt to apply a broad brush to me that I don’t like the color or or your lousy brushwork of, you *will* get an ear-full of grief for it.)
A new video from TurdF33t?
Does he still look sweaty, unhinged, and one more incredulous squeal away from a burst blood vessel?
Is there a #Stupid- hashtag?
numerobis @10 “surely you’ll have wifi on the plane?” — That’s a definite maybe, depending on the airline you’re using. Plus, it could cost you extra to get WiFi access. American airline companies, such as United, are still stuck somewhere in the 90s…maybe late 90s.
Costs extra, plus I don’t mind a break from the Internet, plus I stocked up on light reading on the iPad (currently reading Fingersmith, it’s very good).
So wait….let me make sure I have this straight. Humanism never had any connotation of being decent to your fellow humans until this week? And that brand new connotation is bad? Damn, I gotta lay off the Absolut.
I don’t find it surprising, unfortunately.
Starting with how one of the most openly bigoted members of my local freethinkers group came from a humanist group. And then years of the constant “I’m a humanist, not a feminist!” crowd online.
It’s to the point that I find claims of being a humanist immediately suspect, much like various other terms. (Though, not as bad as “egalitarian” and similar which seems to explicitly mean anti-feminist/social justice.)
I’ll say, though, Sincere seems to be saying some great stuff. So there are certainly some bright points.
The worst part about this is that these fabulous, quasi-famous, hyperrationalist atheists are by their own words, committed to equality for women, LGBTQ folk and people of all races, cultures and ethnicities. But every time anyone from those groups actually starts doing anything about anything or talking up or back, they do a butthurt, butthurt, ACTIVATE! The dweebs even have the gall to call out progressive humanists’ new inclusive platform for not including enough diverse groups. Like literally, Sargon and Thunderf00t, start those American Indian, American Japanese (or other Asian immigrants) humanist groups! Oh wait you don’t care, you just care that someone is doing something without white male in front of it. And pretending white males haven’t been at the forefront and the leadership of humanist organisations since they were fuckin’ founded.
Comment shredded, guess I forgot TF is probably on the blocklist..
Sometimes I forget that things aren’t important or useful to discuss until the Bro Justice Warriors give us their permission.
@butterflyfish #26
No. Like, Naaaaah. Some bullshit is so common that you’re happy to have bots clean it up.
I really am having a hard time understanding just why some “men” ,as I am pretty sure it is “men” only, have such a hard time with this. I can understand your “normal red necks” and evangelical christians much easier but these guys who claim reason and intellectual seriousness and then they get all school yard and complain about others ideas with childish and emotional tirades against groups of other people who they claim affinity to but it seems do not share the same ideals with.
very strange
uncle frogy
Athywren@15: “Also, if you mispronounce it, it becomes Atheism Asterix, which is fucking awesome!”
Ils sont fous, ces athés-minus!
I’ve only looked at two of Sincere’s pieces so far and both of them are attracting lots or really irrational twits. First the piece on “village atheists”, in which there was someone that just had to show up to mention PZ. A regular pattern in there was people who simply had to leave these vague, negative emotionally laden smears. I asked them to show me what led to such a reaction in the piece but getting anyone to add substance to go along with the emotion was like pulling teeth.
I’m starting in on the comments on an interview he did with Aaron Ra and so far it’s more of vague smears about feminism, weird mentions of really old goals of feminism where a substantive current goal related to humanism should be, people misrepresenting quotes, and people who can’t let elevatorgate go and seem to have problems with tone.
It’s rather pathetic, or at least it would be if it did not come in sizable bursts.
Siggy @ 12. Good point. That was my first reaction too
Face it, boss. You’re the George Soros of leftist atheism ;)
Yeah, why can’t you leave humanism the philosophy about decent treatment and justice for humans alone with your ideas about decent treatment and justice for humans!
The Illuminati and Trilateral Commission of social justice.
Just out of curiousity, I took a look at the AHA’s action alerts and press releases pages from May 2005 courtesy of the Wayback Machine. Plenty of calls to support LGBT rights (especially marriage). Calls to support prosecuting hate crimes against disadvantaged groups. Support for women’s rights, including abortion. Support for due process for those suspected of terrorism. Support for the rights of the mentally ill. Opposition to the death penalty. Opposition to racially motivated violence. And so on.
Yep, social justice is definitely a brand new things for the American Humanist Association.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @ 34:
“You got your peanut butter in my peanut butter!”
Tell me, if humanism is supposed to be for the equality of all, then why is feminism trying to supplant humanism in actions and words? Are men just not deserving of equality? Women ARE ALREADY EQUAL to men in the Western world, and in many cases superior to men! Who gets more reproductive rights? Who gets granted custody in the vast majority of divorces? Who does on the job 92% of the time? Who commits suicide more of often? And you don’t care about any of this because you get your widdle fewwings hurt if someone disagrees with you. Why put identity politics ahead of actual equality?
I doubt you or anyone else will answer. I also wager that this will be deleted because it is Wrongthink. This is why this bullshit is being derisively called humanism+, because it elevates some people above others in the humanist movement. It is the antithesis of everything humanists should stand for. If you support this, then leave because you are no humanist.
Only on paper. Wage gaps, power gaps, glass ceilings are still in place. You didn’t evidence the true equality by showing links to equal pay, rank, etc.
Yes.
That is, yes men are deserving of equality. Not, yes men are not deserving of equality.
False.
The people with the most wombs. If you want a say over what happens in a womb, get one of your own.
The one who bothers to ask for custody.
…maybe rephrase this one? I have no idea what you’re asking.
Attempts or succeeds?
Um, yes, I think you’ll find it’s spelled “feewings.”
I don’t know. Why put carrots ahead of interstellar expansion? I’m not sure I understand the question.
Not Wrongthink, Nothink. But your inane post will be there for posterity, along with your evidenceless assertions and paranoia about being taken advantage of. Which you aren’t.
Script #10. Very unoriginal.
I’ve got ot say, I do like the assertion that a consistent dedication to humanism is the antithesis of everything humanists should stand for. That really made me giggle. I might have to use it from time to time myself.
“Excuse me, but when I came to this fish and chip shop, I was NOT expecting fish and chips! Fish and chips are the antithesis of everything a fish and chip shop should stand for!!”
No, Humanism isn’t about Social Justice, and it also isn’t about segregating humans into subgroups. All you’re doing is fracturing an ideology that had already established a positive identity worldwide. I know this will likely fall on deaf ears, but all this does is turn Humanism into another in-fighting cult of personality (as it did with atheism) while ostracizing some of the greatest egalitarian minds of our time. Correct the ship, don’t do this.
Stop serving fish and chips! Fish and chip shops aren’t about fish and chips! Get back to the fabrication of corrugated iron sheeting! :’3
Ah yes, you think we are running a meritocracy with residual institutionalized misogyny, racism, and homo/trans bigotry still in place. Spoken like someone what doesn’t want to share….
Perhaps it is: “Who dies on the job 92% of the time?”
“Ah yes, you think we are running a meritocracy …”
No, you’re trying to cultivate a hierarchy of perceived oppression based on arbitrary characteristics. I’ll admit there are places in the world where groups are outrageously marginalized, such as most of the Middle and Far East, but the West is reaching equilibrium without the need for such methods.
thanosisking wrote:
I don’t think most men have problems getting vasectomies, while getting most other procedures that women need or want are often under attack. Plenty of women here have recounted tales of trying and failing to get tubal ligation procedures. Abortion is constantly under attack (OK tried to make it a felony recently).
I can’t be bothered to look it up, but I seem to recall seeing that when men request custody, it is usually granted. As I understand it, the problem was that men don’t often request custody.
That certainly is a problem. Feminists are trying to dismantle toxic masculinity which causes men to feel perpetually inadequate due to harmful and impossible to meet standards (which often came packaged in three little words: “Be a Man!”). What are you doing about this? Besides whining about feminists, that is.
Besides, as I noted in my post about their site in 2005, AHA has been involved in social justice (anti-sexism, anti-racism, LGBT rights, minority religious freedom, etc) fights for at least a decade (and honestly, it’s been part of their charter for a whole lot longer than that). If you didn’t know that, you were never a Humanist.
Only in YOUR delusional mind. Show me society is utterly and totally equal in results across the board. Take a hard look at those who think the extremely qualified Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are not presidential as they lack white skin or a penis….
Egalitarian society only comes AFTER all the institutionalized bigotry is eradicated. We aren’t there yet, on either side of the pond.
Jeremiah @43:
Society has already segregated humans into subgroups, many of which are treated unjustly, often not even as fully human. How does recognizing and trying to correct that not fall under the purview of humanism?
“Only in YOUR delusional mind.”
Really? Sheesh. Not a good way to start, there.
“Show me society is utterly and totally equal in results across the board. Take a hard look at those who think the extremely qualified Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are not presidential as they lack white skin or a penis….”
So marginalized that they’ve become two of the most powerful people in the world? Because a tiny minority of Americans have a distorted view, that means you need to categorize and segregate all groups and promote a system that, itself, creates degrees of inequality?
“Egalitarian society only comes AFTER all the institutionalized bigotry is eradicated. We aren’t there yet, on either side of the pond.”
No, you promote the egalitarian society once there is equality under the law, which we have now. Thinking you can somehow force all people to think a particular way “We’re going to promote this group or sex until everyone thinks this way” is just a sure way of overcompensating and diminishing the rights of the Social Justice out-groups in the process. IOW, you’re creating a system that will feed itself victims forever, because getting everyone on the same page for the same thing is like herding cats. I can show you examples of where, for example, women and gays are unequal in the eyes of the law, but it isn’t in Western Society.
“Society has already segregated humans into subgroups, many of which are treated unjustly, often not even as fully human. How does recognizing and trying to correct that not fall under the purview of humanism?”
We fought for equality under the law and we have it, baking Social Justice it into an ideology, that’s to the benefit of all Humans, only creates division and a system of hierarchical “oppressiveness”.
NOT ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.
Show us the evidence that society is equal up and down the jobs, pay, political offices, etc.
The fact that YOU had two post with no links tells me all I need to know about your level of lying and bullshitting…which is considerable.
Jeremiah R.
FYI
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
<b>bold</b>
bold
<i>italic</i>
italic
“NOT ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.”
Show us the evidence that society is equal up and down the jobs, pay, political offices, etc.”
The fact that YOU had two post with no links tells me all I need to know about your level of lying and bullshitting…which is considerable.”
Did you miss the Civil Rights movement in history class? MLK Jr? Where is there inequality under the law in Western society? Where? How does Humanism fit into forcing individual opinions to change? Those happen organically once there IS equality under the law, WHICH WE HAVE NOW. Again, Humanism isn’t about categorizing and segregating groups, it’s about encouraging inclusion, not division based on arbitrary characteristics.
Honestly, after seeing what the Social Justice “atom bomb” did to the online atheist communities, why would the AHA get within 1000 miles of it?
Jeremiah @55:
“The hard work’s done. Just sit back and wait for attitudes to change organically!”. I’d call that HumanismMinus.
That’s a strawman. As if there isn’t a moderate middle ground between doing nothing and Social Justice categories and segregation. Have you seen the blatant racism and classism at the root of groups like Black Lives Matter? That’s not Humanism.
Jeremiah R.
You’re welcome.
Pretending that humanism wasn’t already a social justice ideology long before a woman had the damned nerve to say, “don’t do that,” and unreasonably forced definitely entirely rational men to spend 5 years and counting wailing and gnashing about how women wanting to be treated like human beings is terrorism, why would they want to hold on to people who have no understanding of what humanism is beyond “it’s just another word for atheist!”
Jeremiah @58:
Oh, the horrible irony. You sound like a rich bloke whining about ‘class war’. Why are entitled folk so thin-skinned?
Jeremiah R:
If equality is all that matters, why bother with the Civil Rights Act at all? The South was very insistent that African-Americans were “separate, but equal”, and that should’ve been more than satisfactory under that regime. In their view it was an unfair interference in their way of life, and amounted to meddling in affairs that didn’t need to be changed because there was already equality according to the law.
Could it be that the law wasn’t enough, and more had to be done to enforce equality like forcefully integrating the “separate, but equal” schools?
Rob Grigjanis
Guilt and Shame.
They know that they are not really entitled to any of it
and the knowledge gnaws at them.
Fear
They know that they could lose it all at any moment.
Talk about evading the evidence. Show me, with academic evidence, that the civil rights legislation has RESULTED in equal results for blacks. It hasn’t. This is called evidence. Link to median income white/asian/black/hispanic. Prima facie evidence results are not equal, as blacks/hispanics make only 60% that of whites/asians. Unless you are a bigot who believes in “separate but equal“.
Show me YOUR evidence, or shut the fuck up.
Also, the Feminist Caucus has been part of the American Humanist Association since 1977. This fight to avoid social justice topics from “infecting” Humanism was lost almost 40 years ago.
Also, also, the original Humanist Manifesto called for socialism to replace capitalism. Not Bernie Sanders socialism, but Karl Marx socialism. The most recent Manifesto doesn’t directly call for socialism, but it does heavily criticise neoliberal capitalism. It really isn’t the movement you think it is.
Can’t help but laugh at this being the work of a “minority of people with messed up views”, as if unarmed black teens aren’t getting shot left and right by racists, while also being massively over-represented in prison populations.
This minority of people must have really far-reaching power, when just about every trans person I know can point to a handful of times they’ve been abused or threatened because of it.
Like, really, fuck off. Getting things fixed de jure is nice, but it means jack shit if the de facto discrimination is just as bad.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls wrote:
Just to head off the inevitable objection about occupation distribution, region, marital status, etc, being the cause of the difference, here’s a study that controls for those variables, and still is unable to account for 25% of the difference in wages. So, yeah, the wage gap is real.
@thanosisking 38
I’m going to try to appeal to any sense of honor that you might have and ask some questions. You came in here and made some strong assertionsof fact and accusations and it’s fair for me to ask where you got your ideas from. I need information outside of you for this.
Why do you think that feminism is trying to supplant humanism? I have seen people who are feminists and humanists decide to work together for common goals. If you have seen differently show me.
What makes you think anyone here thinks men are not deserving of equality? This is an accusation and it’s fair to know what makes you think this.
Women are not equal to men. That is why there are many social forces that try to control them when it comes to control of their own bodies. That is why in interviews with women athletes there are lots of questions that have to do with domestic BS instead of serious questions about their command of their profession and similar patterns with other women professionals.
Women because of biology and evolution. What rights are you looking for?
The parent who is more interested and who will best provide for the children. Any problems that you might have with how this plays out in reality will require looking closer.
I assume you mean “dies”. Why do think this statistic matters with respect to any relationships between humanists and feminists?
Why do think this statistic matters with respect to any relationships between humanists and feminists?
My feelings are not hurt because you are no threat to me and my minority status tend to be an advantage in online arguments. Now are you willing to act like an adult and have a constructive disagreement?
Why do you assume that politics based on identity does not have the goal of equality?
In order to understand the problems that people have you have to look at them as a group. When you do so you see that lots of groups have unique problems and that it’s rational for them to politically organize as groups to work on them. Race, sex, gender, mental ability and more all face different challenges based on identity.
You were wrong.
1) PZ does ban people when they become disruptive in a way that is not constructive, but he does not delete things very often. You would have to be pretty bad for that to happen. If you actually engage with people and try to offer sources of information that you base your claims on you will probably be ok.
2) Define “wrong think”. The value of an insulting characterization is only in the ability of the characterizer to unpack it. Otherwise it’s mere name-calling.
You have yet to show how anyone was being elevated above anyone else. I see people getting elevated so that they can get an equal voice that they previously did not.
I refuse to leave and you can’t make me. Now what?
@Jeremiah R.
Really? Because I don’t see anything in the American Humanist Association’s description of humanism that in incompatible with acknowledging the objective reality of the subgroups of humans that exist, and I see a whole lot in there about accepting reality as it exists.
How is acknowledging the objective reality of the subgroups of humans that exist fracturing anything or threatening a positive image?
If you are willing to add some substance to your words I will be willing to talk it over with you. But as it stands I do not see any threat.
Sorry. Thanks chigau. :)
What a waste of time it was, studying philosophy for those years at university, when I could have learned what the philosophy of humanism *really* is from the blog comments by a random puncher-down. All those ethics lectures when I could have just slept in and not had to learn about the basis of civil rights, feminism, systemic inequality, social and economic justice and politics. All those Rousseau and Arendt readings I could have skipped! There is so much Bertrand Russel and Dewey I could have ignored, in favour of preserving the status quo, and ignoring reality.
Who gets more reproductive rights?
The people supplying the sperm. Because they get all the say about what happens to their bodies* while those with the uteri only get very limited control of what’s happening to their bodies**
*except when raped
**even when they actually wanted to conceive.
this fellow demonstrates what I said way up there. Here he comes spouting his ignorance and resentment about something he does not understand it is just something he read or heard and it reminds him of his resentment about some shitty deal he got one time.
I am beginning to think that people like this think that humanism and atheism are some kind of a moderate thing not revolutionary that they are safe none confrontational.
They are use to the astro-turf movements like the tea baggers that are funded by the rich to channel the resentment of those who have been cheated and abused to focus on not blaming the rich and powerful for their plight and instead blame the elected government. you know democracy so they are primed for a king to save things to take care of them to make it all better.
Humanism is a very dangerous thing for the powerful coupled with rationalism could spell a lot of trouble.
Same thing happens in religion compassion and reason cause a lot of trouble for the conventional and the established humanism has infected it to.
I was thinking of Daniel Berrigan who died a little while ago
the answer of why they are so thin skinned
I think it is fear almost entirely that is sure what I took away from the comments today.
They have no guilt nor shame if they did they would not be so defensive.
uncle frogy
[blink] [blink]
I just… What the… I can’t even…
Just how fucking clueless is it possible to be? Gee, it’s like these people have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what any of things they’re wailing about actually mean or involve. “Humanism isn’t about Social Justice”? Good grief… Go to the back of the class, sit down, shut up, and listen – you just might learn something.
Jeremiah R. @ 55:
No, Humanism is often about recognizing that within most societies, there are existing divisions based on arbitrary characteristics, and working to redress that real-world inequalities this creates.
Humanism didn’t create these divisions. It just doesn’t pretend they aren’t pervasive.
Anri
If those people getting the short end of the stick for belonging to certain subgroups of society could just stop pointing this out maybe white dudes could finally enjoy all the pretty paper equality those unarmed black kids are currently bleeding on.
@Giliell, 76
Well, to be fair, it’s not like de facto equality can drip through organically while we’re wickedly forcing people to rage against the concept of social justice by pointing out that we’re way off reaching it, is it?
Equality, a rare flower that only blossoms in absolute dark…
Oh, look what popped up on my Twitter. Black people being denied pain relief. Must be the SJWs doing it. After all, if BLM didn’t exist, doctors wouldn’t even notice their patents are black!
+++
Also, the fuck is wrong with FtB always telling me “your request has timed out”?
Saying that the laws already make everyone equal is like showing someone how to play chess, then pitting them against someone with decades of experience and expecting them to win, or even be a challenge.
Well, it’s a fair game, they both knew all the rules…..
I bet a lot of folks in the South were forming similar defenses of Jim Crow.
Oddly, the ONLY PEOPLE i see causing division within atheism and humanism… are the people whinging about social justice.
stop fucking projecting already, you assholes.
No, because it isn’t there.
and you didn’t see it either. someone TOLD you it was there, and because you are an authoritarian fuckwit, you believed them.
nobody needs you. there’s too many authoritarians around already.
just ask Donald Trump.
To Jeremiah R.
In this world, including in the west, there are real groups of people who are disadvantaged.
This is false. It was achieved by the constant tireless and (often) thankless effort of feminists using exactly those tactics that you find distasteful. Only once problems can be identified in the social consciousness can they be fixed.
Read some history. You’re an ignorant fool.
@EnlightenmentLiberal, 82
Just because I suspect this will be picked on as a major point by someone at some point, maybe six or seven months down the line…
…not just or always feminists.