Here’s a nice one. Clueless racist misogynist white d00d “libertarian” asshole high-school debate-team CHAMPEEN! Here is a sampling of his debate-team CHAMPEEN rhetoric:
We are great at tearing down our opponents’ arguments.
Was I being unreasonable? Please let me know.
Huh, I know a few black people.
Again, if you’re disallowed from doing the work you want, you are a slave to the system that restricts you.
How did you so violently miss the point? Seriously. Are you being willful about this or are you just obfuscating?
Prejudice? Perhaps the word you’re looking for is “presumptuous?” I understand they both start with P but come on.
If you’re not allowed to peacefully use your body how you wish to use it, then you’re probably a slave to someone.
Wait, only black people were ever slaves? WTF is wrong with you? Are you being willfully stupid?
You need a basic premise before you move onto further steps, no? First, take a stance, then act, etc.
And these are just from the last half day! As you can see, this is just a game for people like this who–for whatever reason–lack actual productive outlets for their rhetorical energies, and so use atheism/libertarianism/whateverism as an opportunity to live out their high-school debate-team CHAMPEEN Walter Mitty fantasies on the Internet.
These ineffectual people are afraid of atheism+, exactly because it threatens their pretend privileged status on the atheism debate-team CHAMPEENSHIP playground, and threatens the real privileged status of the “famous” white d00d atheists they identify with to control discourse and the allocation of resources to real advocacy operations.
107 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
Rodney Nelson
September 12, 2012 at 5:50 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You can always tell who the libertarians are. They’re the center of the universe, can never do anything wrong, and everyone else should just admire them for their sheer awesomeness.
joeshabadoo
September 12, 2012 at 5:53 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What does this have to do with Atheism +?
Rick Craig
September 12, 2012 at 6:27 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Wow. The article above has exactly the style of ad hominem attacks I’ve seen toxically anti-intellectual Christians use against educated atheists.
trinioler
September 12, 2012 at 6:33 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
*sigh* He was arguing with my A+scribe account. It was pretty enragingly bad.
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 6:42 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation and passing a judgement on what is contained in it.
I love how libertarian has become a slur in this crowd.
It just shows that this is more about political differences in the atheist community then about feminism, harassment or any of the other white noise.
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 6:44 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Ironically, “You’re just like a fundamentalist! is a favorite among those very same Christians. Did you mean to do that?
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 6:47 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Wrong. Political differences, particularly those around policies to reduce, rather than increase, socioeconomic inequality, have also been a part and parcel of Atheism+.
And I’m not really sorry libertarians are sad that people see them for who they are.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 6:59 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So, that’s my Twitter account you’ve pointed to. It’s nice that you’ve posted one side of the conversation out of context to make the point that I’m somehow misogynistic AND racist. Two for one!
I was asking A+ Scribe where atheismplus stood on the matter of sex work. Specifically, I was asking where they stood on the issue of prostitution.
Here’s a hint. I have this crazy notion that women should be able to peacefully do whatever they want to do with their own bodies. It would certainly follow that I’m against regulating sex work. Hence, I’m PRO sex worker’s rights.
As this seems like a basic human right to me, I asked why a drawn out discussion needed to take place as one can be FOR basic human rights without consulting the people affected.
Hence, my analogy to slavery. If one is disallowed to do what they wish to do with their own body, then they are in some part a slave to the system that is restricting them. Just like abortion rights. If women are denied reproductive rights, then they are a slave to the system denying them those rights.
When I brought up this analogy, I was told that it was dehumanizing to both sex workers and black people. This completely misses the point. I wasn’t calling sex workers slaves because they are sex workers. I was making the de facto argument that if any person is not free to conduct their own affairs, then they are in part, a slave to someone else.
Please explain how this is either sexist or racist.
Renee Hendricks
September 12, 2012 at 7:00 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It may have been more honest (not to mention revealing) had you put *both* sides of the Twitter conversation up for all to see.
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 7:07 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Did i say i was sad?
Did i say politics havent been a part of atheism? Or did i say this A+ is being represented as working towards social justice and has turned into a political path by its supporters?
What exactly is it who we are in your estimation there brainy smurf?
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 7:29 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Did I respond as if you fucking did?
Not at all, asshole.
This is what I wrote: “Political differences, particularly those around policies to reduce, rather than increase, socioeconomic inequality, have also been a part and parcel of Atheism+.”
See that little fucking plus sign?
Politics are not neutral on social justice. Nothing’s been ‘turned into’ a political path.They’ve always been a part of Atheism+.”
Who is ‘we’? Are you saying you’re a libertarian?
Then there you go. You’re more upset that people think you’re self-centred and stupid assholes than you are about social justice.
Jon
September 12, 2012 at 7:31 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
wow… these blogs used to at least be intellectually honest.. I watched/read the debate yesterday, and your showing one side, without context.
WTF happened around here?
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 7:35 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Rebecca Watson said “Don’t do that”, and it was the worst thing atheists ever experienced.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 7:41 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Except, I wasn’t talking about Rebecca Watson. I was talking about sex worker’s rights. Your feelings about libertarians aside, Brownian, are you willing to go on record here in this thread to assert that this post is basically a smear and has little to do with reality?
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 7:41 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Your an angry little guy. Its cute
A+ ideals as laid out to the community.
We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.
Where are the economic ideals stated in there? Thats right aside from a general idea that yes social situations do have sometimes arrive from economic conditions and they are intertwined there is not a single mention of we support capitalist or communist or any other economical structure.
So let me make it simpler so you cant resort to what you believe are cute demonstrations of your intellect..
Show me where anything A+ says it stands for defines an economic or social value contrary to Libertarian(US) Party Ideals?
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 7:42 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well, as it is true for everyone that they are not free to conduct their own affairs, everyone’s a slave to someone else.
I think you meant to discuss that in the politicalscience101+ forum.
Skavau
September 12, 2012 at 7:42 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This article is beyond contemptible. You misinterpret (and I can only assume deliberately) a query about sex workers rights according to atheism+ and present it as if the author is being ignorant and misogynistic and imply he’s arguing in favour of the status of the “old white men” in New atheism you seem to dislike.
You mention nothing whatsoever about what he was arguing for and present a string of comments completely devoid of context. This kind of article is the kind of waste I’d expect to see on a creationist site where they quote-mine biologists. It is misleading, intellectually dishonest and you should be ashamed.
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 7:54 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Little to do with reality? Are any of those quotes incorrect?
I will go on record as agreeing with those posters who claim that the posting of the above quotes, without context, is unfair and unrepresentative. Further, to say “the kind of people” is a smear. No doubt. Physioproffe, bad. Bad, bad, bad. Don’t do this kind of shit, both for ethical reasons and that it attracts libertarian flies.
My emotional state has fuck-all to do with anything. I’m not here to fuck you, so fuck off, you stupid shit.
I don’t know why this is so fucking hard for libertarians to fucking understand.
You believe in the right to free speech, right? The right to persuade others in the political realm? This involves being able to make claims, counter others, and and rebut counters to your original claims? Your ability to vote, again and again? Censorship is like, bad, right?
You would also ostensibly agree that we vote with our purchasing power and our labour in the market, right?
But unfortunately, poverty, illness and discrimination can rob people of that ability to influence the market much like censorship robs people of their ability to persuade in the political realm. So preventing people as much as possible from hitting that rock bottom from which there may be no return, economically, keeps them as actors in the market.
The reality is that there are no political arguments divorced from economic realities.
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 7:56 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yes, this was wrong of you, Physioproffe.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 7:59 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So brave of you, Brownian. I’m glad to know that political and ideological differences play no part in intellectual honesty on your part. Just to be clear, I couldn’t care less where your ideological or political lie. Even if I were violently opposed to them, I would strongly condemn anyone who attempted to smear you.
Why not the same courtesy?
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 8:02 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Here’s more context to the conversation:
We are great at tearing down our opponents’ arguments. <- Not mine. This was tweeted by AtheismPlusPlus (retweeted by me, however).
Was I being unreasonable? Please let me know. <- Asked from me *after* you had been blocked.
Huh, I know a few black people. <- My entire tweet: “ Huh, I know a few black people. I'll be sure to ask them how dehumanizing that analogy was to them.”
Again, if you’re disallowed from doing the work you want, you are a slave to the system that restricts you. <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger Its dehumanizing to black people, because you're using their history against someone else.
How did you so violently miss the point? Seriously. Are you being willful about this or are you just obfuscating? <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger Calling them "slaves" erases all of that complexity and all the human fact away.
Prejudice? Perhaps the word you’re looking for is “presumptuous?” I understand they both start with P but come on.<- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger Look, no black person speaks for their whole group, neither does any sex worker. That's prejudice.
If you’re not allowed to peacefully use your body how you wish to use it, then you’re probably a slave to someone. <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger And using the slaves descriptor is really quite offensive, to not just sex workers, but to black people as well.
Wait, only black people were ever slaves? WTF is wrong with you? Are you being willfully stupid? <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger And using the slaves descriptor is really quite offensive, to not just sex workers, but to black people as well.
You need a basic premise before you move onto further steps, no? First, take a stance, then act, etc. <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger Er, its not just about being "against" slavery, but what do we do? How do we do it without hurting people? Etc.
Make of this what you will…
Xanthë
September 12, 2012 at 8:16 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It’s hard to make very much of it at all: did you really expect to be able to have a nuanced discussion about sex worker’s rights, when you’re limited to gobbets of 140 characters at a time? #Furrfu.
chaos_engineer
September 12, 2012 at 8:16 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was asking A+ Scribe where atheismplus stood on the matter of sex work. Specifically, I was asking where they stood on the issue of prostitution.
You really ought to be able to figure this out on your own!
Atheism+ holds that exploitative forms of prostitution should be illegal.
Some A+ people think that all prostitution is inherently exploitative, and so prostitution should always be illegal.
Other A+ people think that prostitution can be non-exploitative if the rights of sex workers are adequately defended, so they’re willing to see prostitution legalized in some situations. They oppose the sort of exploitation that would inevitably take place in an unregulated/neo-Feudal libertarian market.
There was a debate about this between some of the freethoughtblogs people a few months back, and I think it ended with everyone just agreeing to disagree.
Anyway, this is why your slavery analogy was so silly. Slavery is inherently exploitative. Do you think its valid to say: “If people aren’t allowed to sell themselves into slavery, then they’re slaves to the anti-slavery lobby!”
skeptifem
September 12, 2012 at 8:19 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I am sure that you show up to complain about the use of the word ‘fascist’ too. Being a fascist is just a political position, after all!
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 8:20 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@Xanthe: I would expect people to be able to make up their own mind on the matter if they were given the full conversation, fully in context and without a smear as a prelude.
One can go to my Twitter feed to see this, if they wish. It’s painfully obvious that the op edited my tweets, took them out of context and only showed one side of the conversation. He/she then muddied the water by calling me a misogynist and a racist.
I would think that any bien pensant could determine the facts of the matter and conclude that the op is being dishonest (at best) and slanderous (at worst).
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 8:24 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@chaos_engineer: You seemed to have missed my point, though I’ve clarified it several times, now.
I said that if a person is forbidden to do something peacefully with their own body, then they are de facto a partial slave to the person who is restricting them thus.
Ergo, if a sex worker is forbidden from doing sex work, that means that the person forbidding them to do so owns their body in some way. It’s the same for abortion. If a group of people get together and forbid you from having an abortion (or deny you birth control), then you don’t own your own reproductive choices. Therefore, you are, in part, a slave to the people making those choices for you.
This is all besides the point. Do you, or do you not, hold that the original piece the op posted is basically a smear?
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 8:26 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
And my point was proven by your non answer. There is no incompatibility with The originally stated ideals of A+
Yet the supporting crowd continues to push away libertarians.
I can tell you i was on board with the original ideals.
But as soon as i saw what is happening and the underpinnings of the people involved i want no part.
Just remember your stance on libertarians when people who support A+ keep coming out and saying its inclusive not exclusive.
I don’t mind exclusion. I mind social manipulation with a goal towards driving a political wedge.
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 8:27 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I don’t understand. Did my criticism of Physioproffe’s OP not satisfy you?
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 8:29 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So you did, Brownian. So you did. My apologies.
trinioler
September 12, 2012 at 8:29 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
John Brown:
You asked where A+ stood. I assumed you were asking for a full, complex stance and action plan/opinion, which I don’t personally have yet. I’d rather let those who know more discuss it, and then evaluate what they conclude for myself.
Of course we we’re for sex workers rights. That seems to be a miscommunication here, where you were asking for something more simple than I assumed.
How would you have responded if I had said that? Would you have demanded a full thought-out plan?
I was considering the complexity of the “is”, whereas you were pontificating about the “ought”.
There is a system which conspires to make *some* women, particularly women of color, “choose” – when its a false choice – to become sex workers. This is more what I was talking about; How do we deal with this system, without taking actions that end up harming the women involved?
Banning prostitution only makes it riskier for the sex workers. Punishing johns, again, makes it riskier for sex workers. The police often punish and abuse sex workers as well. In fact, in many US cities, carrying a condom can be used as evidence of intent to prostitute, which in turn forces sex workers to not carry condoms, thereby increasing their risk.
Its a very complex situation and saying, “We’re for sex workers rights” is absolutely fluff and meaningless without a better understanding and respect of and for sex workers. We want to avoid making decisions like those listed above which serve only to hurt or increase the risks of sex workers.
Twitter is NOT a good format for this kind of discussion. It leads to you mugging for the audience, while I’m trying to have an actual discussion with you.
Also, you can claim you talked to some black friends; what evidence do we have that they exist? And further, no single black person is an envoy for their entire fucking group. I’m sick and tired of being treated that way.
When someone makes an argument about something being harmful and offensive, you don’t find someone from the representative group to contradict that argument; you deal with the argument itself! Just because one or more black disagree doesn’t make the argument false; only logic, reasoning, and evidence does that.
When someone says, “I will ask my black friends” what they’re saying is, that they expect each and every single black person to speak for the whole group, to be a representative, and that is both racist and unfair. No woman is representative of all women. No man is representative of all men. No black person or other people of color are representative of their groups either.
I would suggest you retract your comments about asking your black friends, and actually address the argument on its own merits. What if you were talking to a black person? Or a former or current sex worker? What if?
Its like feminism; who has the better arguments about feminism, Sarah Palin, or Hillary Clinton? (Hint, its not the Republican) Either you take every single woman as representative of a group, and able to speak authoritatively about feminism, or you analyze their arguments for the merits and correctness. Which one is the skeptical path?
Now, the reason I said “Listen to sex workers” is, because we’ve done so little of that, few of us know what would work and what wouldn’t. We don’t really have a grasp of their situation like they do. Contrast this with over 60 years of the Civil Rights movement, or 100 years getting support for Deaf/Hard of Hearing people.
Even then, its important to listen to their perspectives, because, with privilege, its hard for us to see their lives the way they do.
Again, this is not contradictory with the message of evaluating the argument above; You don’t invalidate anyone’s personal experience of reality(like saying they never experienced sexual harassment when they have), but you also have to evaluate that personal perspective and what it contributes to the argument.
Palin adds little to the argument, often making the mistake of generalizing from her own experience to all women, while Clinton adds a significant amount to the argument, using her own experiences, and those she’s met with to bolster it.
(Also, neat factoid: Clinton goes around the world meeting feminist and women’s groups leaders in many countries, often before meeting those country’s leaders. She takes photos with them, because those photos can save those women’s lives in many of those countries. Several third world feminist leaders have spoken out saying how those photos are better than bullet-proof armor. Clinton is having a measurable impact on women’s lives around the world. I have huge respect for her because of this.)
Pierce R. Butler
September 12, 2012 at 8:36 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
John Brown @ # 5: … I’m against regulating sex work. Hence, I’m PRO sex worker’s rights.
Here’s a clue, John Brown: Those nations in which sex workers have the most rights (approximately, northern Europe), happen to have lots of regulations concerning said work. State-provided health inspections, police enforcement of worker safety, bouncers to keep drunks’ hands (and other parts) off the dancers, court mediation of payment disputes… you can’t have sex workers’ rights without regulation.
Similar conditions, you might be amazed to find out, apply to all other workers, and to citizens in a wide range of circumstances.
kbonn
September 12, 2012 at 8:36 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This post was lazy, poorly thought out, and dishonest, regardless of the positions involved. Not to mention attempts to smear people who disagree with A+.
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 8:37 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why would you compare Sarah Palin and Clinton instead of say Condolesa Rice who held the same position and is the opposite party affiliation?
Do you think Rice photo ops held any less power with feminist groups? Or perhaps you think she didnt do the same things as Secretary of State?
Compare apples to apples at least.
skeptifem
September 12, 2012 at 8:37 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
the vast majority want out of prostitution and don’t know how to leave. They are usually coerced into prostitution either by poverty or by specific individuals. The average age of entry into prostitution is 13. The money made from prostitution flows into the hands of men more often than not, men who usually use violence or other forms of coercion to get their way. These women do not get to choose who they will work with or when. Pimps aren’t nice people, and they pretend to be sex worker rights groups to cover up what they do. The right of women to not be prostituted isn’t on the table for them, and neither is the right of women not to be mistreated as sex workers. The majority of groups focus on destigmatizing sex work or making it easier to run a prostitution operation (which includes legalizing the income of pimps). It becomes pretty obvious what the majority of these “rights” groups are about- the right of men to purchase women for sex whenever they please, and the right of men to sell women for profit whenever they please.
I am not a representative of A+, I just really hate hearing prostitution referred to as “women doing what they want with their bodies”. This is why people think libertarians are assholes- you can spout of phrases that sound nice on paper all you want, anyone who looks at the reality of political issues knows that the catch phrases don’t mean anything in the real world. If you want an easy way to engage this topic you could watch Very Young Girls and try to figure out how your libertarian utopia would prevent 13 year olds from being pimped out by violent men.
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 8:38 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yawn.
Libertarianism, as commonly described by its proponents, is antithetical to social justice.
Of course it’s exclusive. It excludes people who think their freedom to contribute to marginalising marginalised groups such as women, transexuals, PoC, etc. trumps having safe spaces for such marginalised groups to participate free from such marginalisation.
One of the goals of Atheism+ is to preclude endless fucking discussions on whether or not policies such as affirmative action or social welfare programs constitute
Neither do I.
Again, politics are not neutral on policies of social justice.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 8:38 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@trinioler:
When I said, I have some black friends, I’ll ask them if my comment was dehumanizing to them, I was making a rather sharp point, which you seemed to have missed.
When you stated that my analogy (an analogy which you misunderstood) was dehumanizing to both sex workers and black people, you were taking the position that you spoke for the emotional state of ALL sex workers and ALL black people (which I still don’t understand how black people came into the conversation, as you completely missed the point of my analogy).
Therefore, I countered with the simple statement that, hey, you know what? I know some black people. I’ll ask them what their opinion is on the matter. I’ll let them judge if my comment was “dehumanizing.” I also know a ton of sex workers. I’ll ask them as well.
You set the perimeters of the conversation, then you got offended when I worked within those perimeters.
Now, I’m willing to grant that Twitter can confuse things. However, I’m not so gracious as to grant that this post and your continued stance on the matter (after several clarifications) are not willful.
What do you have to say about how the op has conducted himself/herself on the matter?
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 8:41 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thanks, John Brown.
I thought you might have simply missed them, and in fairness, I should have agreed with those criticisms of the OP in my first comments on this post.
skeptifem
September 12, 2012 at 8:44 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
justatheist
are you talking to me? I haven’t joined A+, but I’m thinking about it.
Also, it wasn’t a non-answer. You said you think its bullshit that your political affiliation is talked about as an insult. I provided an example of a different political affiliation that is also widely used as an insult, and you failed to either disapprove of the use of the word “fascist” as an insult OR provide a reason why its okay to use “fascist” as an insult but not “libertarian”. You have no real argument except that it feels really unfair that people are actually judging you based on what you believe. You keep implying that all political positions are equivalent and should be included and provide no reason for anyone to agree with such an absurd suggestion, and simply whine when no one takes you seriously.
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 8:45 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
…a greater problem in that they constitute government-sponsored coercion.
FIFM.
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 8:49 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Lets check with the actual source http://www.lp.org/platform
It took all of the first line in the Libertarian statement of principles from our platform this year to show your ignorance.
The rest you cutoff so it made no sense.
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 8:51 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Nope wasnt talking to you skeptifem took your response as ridiculous and not worth discussion.
F
September 12, 2012 at 8:52 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
trinolier:
WRT prostitution: Some people think “regulation” means “disallowance”. That, I think, covers one corner of the disagreement.
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 8:59 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I am perfectly fine with A+ being a political group.
However that is not how it was framed !
Again show me in the principles laid out to the atheist community that tells us that we will not be welcome if we dont hop on the socialist wagon?
We are in agreement what you are saying about not wanting discussion and what i am seeing. My issue is thats not what was presented and its pure social manipulation. Basically what is trying to be formed here is Liberal VS Conservative Atheism.
That is not as its being presented. Present it that way so that truth can be seen.
chaos_engineer
September 12, 2012 at 9:01 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You seemed to have missed my point, though I’ve clarified it several times, now.
I said that if a person is forbidden to do something peacefully with their own body, then they are de facto a partial slave to the person who is restricting them thus.
I think I’m still missing the point.
Having sex is a thing you can do peacefully with your body. There aren’t currently any laws in the US that prevent you have having sex in private with a consenting partner of legal age. (Up until recently there were anti-sodomy laws, and those were a bad thing, but it seems silly to call them “slavery” or even “partial slavery”.)
Engaging in sex work is an economic transaction, and economic transactions are commonly regulated, or prohibited if they’re not in the public interest. This kind of regulation isn’t slavery.
I mean, suppose I’m peacefully running a coal mine where the conditions are so unsafe that none of my workers every lives past 30. This lets me keep costs down, and I’ve driven all my competitors out of business, so I’m the only employer in the area. One day, a government bureaucrat barges in and says, “This really sucks! You have to start following these basic safety regulations. If you can’t figure out how to follow the regulations and still make a profit, then I’m sure some other company will come in and succeed where you failed.”
In this scenario, have I become a partial-slave? Have my workers become partial-slaves? If your answer is “yes”, then I submit that using such a silly redefinition of the word “slavery” is an insult to the people who really were slaves.
JimJesus
September 12, 2012 at 9:04 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Posting a one sided conversation to smear someone? This reminds me of Scientology’s “Religious Freedom Watch” website more than a website promoting skepticism and reason.
My, has the atheist community fallen.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 9:12 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hmmm…I’ve tried posting a link to the original conversation twice, to no avail.
Regardless, if people are interested, they can see the original conversation for themselves and determine whether or not I’m a “misogynist” or a “racist.” Though, my whiteness and libertarianism are not in question.
I would hope that all right thinking, honest people of good will will determine this as nothing more than a smear and a hit piece.
The op should be ashamed.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 9:15 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@chaos_engineer
This is all beside the point and a conversation we can hold elsewhere. I’m interested in knowing why you haven’t denounced this post for what it is. It should be perfectly clear to you by now that what was posted is not anywhere near a fair representation of what was said.
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 9:23 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Jesus fucking Christ. Please tell me you’re younger than 25.
chaos_engineer
September 12, 2012 at 9:42 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This is all beside the point and a conversation we can hold elsewhere. I’m interested in knowing why you haven’t denounced this post for what it is
I haven’t researched it enough to take sides. The quotes were out-of-context, but that’s acceptable if they’re not complete misrepresentations of the intended argument, and if there’s a link back to the original context. I’d need to do more reading to decide how much your argument was misrepresented.
I just saw that you were asking what the A+ position on sex work was. I’d already researched that and had the answer ready, so I thought I’d help you out. Did you have any more questions about it?
Skavau
September 12, 2012 at 9:49 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@59
They were misrepresentations. Calling him a misogynist and a racist from that dialogue would be completely absurd. This was a smear job.
Illyana Volkov
September 12, 2012 at 9:51 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So, what you mean to say is:
Atheism Plus generalizing your opponents.
Atheism Plus casting aspersions.
Atheism Plus marginalizing dissent.
Atheism Plus a religious adherence to a political ideology.
Atheism Plus a virtual pogrom.
Everything I read on FtB today makes me realize how much the epithets it has earned were in fact earned. I genuinely perceive this as unfortunate.
feministwhore
September 12, 2012 at 9:55 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What bothers me most about this blog post is the complete erasure of the context of the exchange. The context was sex work. People keep saying ‘listen to sex workers’ – but how is erasing the entire issue/topic from your blog posts helping any sex workers be heard? How is omitting that the topic was sex work helping people learn anything about that topic?
You folks are supposed to understand about marginalization, and erasing the ENTIRE topic of sex work from the post is actual, right-in-front-of-your-eyes marginalization. This is how silencing works, it’s not that people don’t allow you to speak, it’s that they completely erase the issue, or they just reframe it out of discussion.
So people in the thread will discuss it, badly, and they will think they know what they are talking about but they don’t, and then it becomes an insurmountable task to counter all the mis- and dis- information flying around. I don’t even know where to start.
Most don’t seem to even be familiar with the concept of decriminalization. Most don’t seem to understand the differences between different types of ‘regulation’. Most don’t understand that the issue of calling sex workers ‘slaves’ is not just about how it is dehumanizing, that’s it’s also about the legal conflation of consent and non-consent. Don’t even know where to start.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 9:58 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@feministwhore:
Just to be clear, I in no way called sex workers “slaves.” I made an analogy to slavery when one is not allowed to pursue their own course of action when it comes to their body. I know you probably know that was the point I was making, but I’m just putting it out there again.
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 10:20 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@48
And again critiques i made completely ignored for an insult.
I would like to say im suprised but based on this article i am no longer suprised that actual discussion and reason is met with debasement, insults, and misrepresentation.
Markita Lynda—damn climate change!
September 12, 2012 at 10:29 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
John Brown, the autobiography of the woman who performed in “Deep throat” states that she was forced into it at gunpoint–by someone off-camera holding a gun on her. Are you defending her right to sex work? How about her right to NOT do it if she doesn’t want to? And how would “no regulations” accomplish that?
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 10:37 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@Markita Lynda—damn climate change!
I would be very happy to have that conversation with you, but I don’t feel at liberty to go into any of that before people asking me question first denounce both what was said of me in this post and how it was said. Nobody is arguing in good faith when the elephant in the room isn’t being talked about.
This is no longer about my beliefs. This is about rank intellectual dishonesty and an obvious smear. Why aren’t you taking the op to task on this rather than trying to pin me down on some ancillary ideological point?
feministwhore
September 12, 2012 at 10:46 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
#56 says:
“John Brown, the autobiography of the woman who performed in “Deep throat” states that she was forced into it at gunpoint–by someone off-camera holding a gun on her. Are you defending her right to sex work? How about her right to NOT do it if she doesn’t want to? And how would “no regulations” accomplish that?”
Being forced to do anything at gunpoint is already illegal, actually. I’m not really sure how defending a right to work conflicts with being opposed to people being forced to work at gunpoint. The person holding the gun was her husband, iirc, does this mean we should no longer defend the right to get married?
palmd
September 12, 2012 at 10:47 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Whenever I hear “if you can’t do ‘x’ than you are a slave to someone else” I hear “i im 16 and reading ayn rand in my parents basement and can’t be bothered with a shred of actual empathy, and I live in a fog of incredulity of privilege.”
Skavau
September 12, 2012 at 10:51 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@59
Did you actually read any other part of the dialogue? The full dialogue, as it was and not how this blogger has deceptively presented it in order to frame this guy as a misogynist and a racist.
DKendall
September 12, 2012 at 11:18 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@skeptifem
It would be nice if you could cite some evidence before making wild claims and smearing sex worker rights groups as a front for pimps.
Your claim that the average age of entry into prostitution is 13 has been thoroughly debunked. You should know that considering the fact that I’ve seen people point it out to you on previous occasions.
trinioler
September 12, 2012 at 12:30 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If you’ll note John Brown, I never called you a racist or a misogynist.
I do think you miss my point a lot, and are purposefully clueless on other points.
To other person: I used Palin because she’s far more prominent than Condoleeza Rice. Basically, Palin’s put herself out there as some kind of female role-model, and the kind of comments she makes on feminism are… laughably obtuse.
I feel she’s a good teaching example, because comparing her and Clinton has helped in the past to teach people why you don’t just take any random woman’s word on feminism as gospel. You have to actually use your brain and evaluate, while being mindful of your own biases.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 12:37 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@trinioler
I don’t believe I said you did call me those things. If I did, point it out to me and I’ll offer a sincere apology.
As for the rest, that’s not the issue anymore. We can have this discussion elsewhere. I have yet to see you denounce what was originally written by the op. Because of your continued refusal to do so, I take it as implied that you agree with the sentiment.
So, I’ll just come right out and ask, since this is becoming a boring ordeal.
Do you agree with the op in that I am a “Clueless racist misogynist white d00d “libertarian” asshole high-school debate-team CHAMPEEN?”
Further, do you agree with the tactics he used to misrepresent my position.
Too, since you’re weighing in on the thread, why haven’t you come out to say, “Whoa…wait a minute! That’s not how this went down! Here’s what was actually said.”
I await your answer.
trinioler
September 12, 2012 at 1:11 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I do think you referring to your talking to some black friends was at the very least, tinged with racism, if not just mere category prejudice.
I do disagree with how this was presented. Its not difficult to show tweets between two people; I tend to use such sites when talking with friends to give them context.
Your disdain for “regulations” without specifying what you mean in this thread does back up his assertion about you being a libertarian.
Good regulations(and concomitant enforcement) protect sex workers from abuse and harm. Things like licenses, regular check-ups, police protection from intimidation by pimps and johns, all go a LONG way to helping sex workers.
Those are regulations. The “free hand” of the market has had centuries to fix this, and has not. It has failed because it never existed. People – in general – do not act in their own rational self-interest. They are compelled, pressured, taught, manipulated, intimidated, and so on, into a stunning array of stupid decisions because we are not as rational as we’d like to believe.
For an example, just consider advertising. Need I say more?
trinioler
September 12, 2012 at 1:12 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Sorry invisible* not free. All hail Lord Tpyos!
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@trinioler
“I do think you referring to your talking to some black friends was at the very least, tinged with racism, if not just mere category prejudice.”
Again, you’re being willfully dishonest. It was YOU who brought up “black people” originally. I was responding to the rubric YOU outlined by saying what I said. Surely, if you can take offense on behalf of ALL “black people,” I can retort by offering you some counter evidence, no?
Some white people DO have black friends, after all. I know that doesn’t fit in with the approved paradigm being preached here, but it’s an empirical fact, nonetheless. It stands to reason, that some individuals out of an ENTIRE group that you have taken it upon yourself to feel offense for, may not be so appreciative.
In case you’re interested, I have friends who are homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, asian, Afghan, German, Latino, liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, communist and feminist. May I speak to them as well without being labeled racist, homophobic, classist, etc…?
Don’t answer that. It was rhetorical.
The irony of this whole thing is completely lost on you. What you’re saying about me, more than likely is something you feel about yourself.
So, I’ll accept your reluctant and half-felt apology for what it is and you and I can part ways.
Good day.
trucreep
September 12, 2012 at 1:48 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Damn I’m starting to feel like bloggers are opinionated self-righteous JOYKZ
Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the FreethoughtBlogs Star Chamber
September 12, 2012 at 3:12 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
…
Why did the asshole mentioned in the OP have to come in here under the name ‘John Brown’?
Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the FreethoughtBlogs Star Chamber
September 12, 2012 at 3:14 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Also:
FEMISTASI is filmed on location with the women of Political Correctness Enforcement. All suspects are guilty, because they’re men.
OhioAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 3:29 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Wow. What an appalling blog. You should be ashamed of yourself. Even if you disagree, do so respectfully and honestly. Blatant ad hominems, straw men, and quoting out-of-context are not cool.
emburii
September 12, 2012 at 3:35 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Er…as someone who likes the idea of Atheism+ (even signed my last blood donation with it), I don’t think this post does it any favors.
Posting this guy’s comments without context is a scuzzy thing to do. It’s the kind of thing we don’t like when people do it to us; Stephanie Zvan, for instance, is currently dealing with someone who took a comment on her blog and quoted it out of context to turn it into a death threat. SallyStrange has had a post twisted and pulled without regard to its broader meaning. We are supposed to be better than that. If this guy’s argument was so bad (it might well be, I think I’d disagree with him on a number of things, but…) repost the whole thing complete with the other side of the conversation that prompted his comments.
Demolish the information, not the person; let’s not become the personal nastiness and underhanded tactics that prompted the need for Atheism+ as a refuge in the first place.
Rodney Nelson
September 12, 2012 at 3:45 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Let’s take a look at the preamble to the Libertarian Party platform which was given as “proof” that libertarians aren’t selfish assholes:
What does “sole dominion” mean? Is it “you can’t tell me what to do”? All kinds of people tell us what to do, starting with our parents, teachers, baby sitters, and elder siblings. I spent two years in the Army where people were telling me what to do. My bosses at work tell me what to do. My doctor tells me what to do. When I buy a pair of shoes the sales associate tells me what to do.
Freedom isn’t always a good thing. The freedom to starve is not good when you’re the one starving. But even if we accept that freedom is generally good, it’s not the only good thing. Physical security, which even prisoners can have, is good. The love of a family is good, yet families are one of the least free groupings we know. The emotional ties of families, imposed upon us by other family members, cannot be discarded with ease.
I’ve seen libertarians explain this away by claiming that choices or the freedom to choose are what make something good. I know in my life I’ve made choices that were not good. Also as I said above, often choices are made for me. Why is my bosses’ choices good for them but not good for me?
The reduction of everything to choices presupposes all choices made will be optimal. If one is making a choice without complete knowledge of the possibilities, then the likelihood of making the best choice erodes. It is impossible for anyone to be knowledgeable about everything required to make life’s everyday choices.
Plus individuals must abide by choices made for the good of society. I cannot set myself up as a physician without passing a medical exam to show I’m minimally competent. Many other professions have similar qualifications to keep the incompetent from preying on the rest of us. Yet only the truly hardcore libertarians object to proficiency examinations, the rest of us want professionals to be qualified to do their jobs.
Quite often the price of greater freedom tomorrow is less freedom today. Total freedom today would just run down accumulated social capital and ignoring future problems. So the choice for freedom is the necessarily the right one on any particular question.
Furthermore, if limiting freedom today may enhance it tomorrow, then limiting freedom tomorrow may enhance it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism, which makes freedom an absolute, is wrong.
Libertarianism’s absolutist view of freedom leads to ludicrous outcomes. For instance, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into slavery. (It has been possible in certain societies to do that by assuming unrepayable debt.)
Most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Thus people don’t choose absolute freedom. This refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as it defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. So people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
blindrobin
September 12, 2012 at 3:47 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Quite the Scheiße Sturm you got in the comments, ehh comrade? I though John Brown was hanged for that dust up in Harper’s Ferry Va. quite a long time ago but I don’t think he was a libertarian, more of a wild eyed radical egalitarian. He helped start a bit of a bigger row too if remember correctly or did I miss something?
Anyway I find it disturbing how such little things can spark such animosity, especially amongst those that feel threatened by others with a social conscience that request to be treated in a respectful manner and to not be maligned for expressing their distaste for being treated otherwise.
Rodney Nelson
September 12, 2012 at 3:49 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Setár #68
Because his body lies a-moldering in the grave?
kft
September 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/fftb-aplusscribe-mendaciously-paints-critic-of-atheismplus-cult-as-white-supremacist/
Oh hey, look, taken in the proper context, Shrubblogger’s quotes are . . . still shitty. His initial assertion that “talk to sex workers” is not an appropriate response to the question “what does Atheism+ think about sex work” doesn’t make any sense – “talk to sex workers” is the best response to that question, as far as I can tell from my understanding of A+’s ideals.
The point, which John Brown / A Shrubblogger seems to have missed, is that in order to deal with an industry like sex work, we need to very carefully approach how consent is dealt with, because people can be forced and coerced by those with more power. THAT is the regulation that sex work needs. If you just say “People can do with their bodies what they want,” you’re approaching the issue too simplistically. Sex work could only be legal IF there were sufficient legal protections for the workers to prevent them from being abused by clients and employers.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 4:03 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@kft
Though you have points that can be rationally discussed between two adults, the underlying issue remains. The OP both edited my tweets, posted them out of context without the other side of the conversation, and started out the entire post by calling me racist and misogynist.
I’ll ask you, @kft, as I’ve asked others…is that fair game to you, just because you disagree with my position. Is a “shitty argument” as you call it, justification for outright slander and vilification?
Why do people continue to obfuscate trying to pin me down on ideological points when the elephant in the room remains?
Is the OP’s behavior something you can align yourself behind or not?
Setár, self-appointed Elf-Sheriff of the FreethoughtBlogs Star Chamber
September 12, 2012 at 4:11 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Rodney #74: all I can say is that I didn’t shoot the deputy.
trinioler
September 12, 2012 at 4:21 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hey John Brown, I demand an apology for that article written about me at FFtb!
DEMAND I SAY!
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 4:27 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@trinioler
I demand nothing, actually. Any honest person would give an apology voluntarily.
You may giggle and find this trivial, but I see nothing funny about it. I’ve never engaged in these kinds of tactics and I never would, regardless of whom I’m debating.
This is good, though, because whenever you’re out and about chastising others for acting like damned fools or worse, slanderers, then one can simply point back to this blog post and your hypocrisy will be on full display.
I’ve suffered no damage from this, but you certainly have. It’s a shame you don’t see that as you cloak yourself in the vestments of justice and morality.
John Brown
September 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I believe I’ve made my point and there are enough links out there proving the OP is untrue. Hopefully none of these comments will be deleted, though given the integrity on display by the OP, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Regardless, if anyone wishes to discuss further, you can find me on Twitter.
Cheers.
hannanibal
September 12, 2012 at 5:02 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why not show us the whole converstaion instead of quote-mining the poor fucker into oblivion? Got something to hide?
Shit like this is A+ downfall. You are all a pack of moaning, self pitying, dishonest twats. Go fuck yourself.
FTB. The skidmark on the cancerous polyp on the arsehole of a dishonest, 9/11 truther.
hmmmm
September 12, 2012 at 5:09 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@Rodney Nelson:
Libertarianism’s absolutist view of freedom leads to ludicrous outcomes. For instance, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into slavery.
You’re going to have to go a bit more slowly for me I’m afraid. Is your argument here that giving people certain freedoms might lead to them choosing, of their own volition, to do to themselves something that you think is a bit nuts. And that therefore, giving them such freedoms is in itself a bit nuts?
Because if this is your line of thinking, can you wake me when you get to not letting people choose how much cake they eat, or how much mofo’ing Jameson they drink, or whether or not to ride a motorcycle, etc etc etc, lest they not get to enjoy the standard of living that you want for them. Please don’t let me miss the part where you reason that Euthanasia should never be allowed (because hell, who am I to say whether I want to continue living or not); I wouldn’t want to miss it.
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 6:38 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Not all of us. Some of us are in this because some fuckers need their heads straightened out.
So, right back atcha, sweetheart.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
September 12, 2012 at 7:27 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
LOL oh yeah there’s NO misogyny in the anti-A+ crowd. Nosiree! Bitches like being used as an insult when Whiny Ass Bigot can’t think of any other way to insult those that have the temerity to disagree with their worthless bigot selves.
LOL Yeah. What an argument against A+. Agree with me, or I’ll call you slang for icky ladybits!!!
LOL
JustAtheist
September 12, 2012 at 8:03 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So can we call you daddy now then?
Brownian
September 12, 2012 at 9:50 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Stay out of my way as I’m working on social justice, and I don’t give a flying fuck what you do with yourself.
hannanibal
September 12, 2012 at 11:30 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle
AWWwwwww.. Did the naughty word hurt your precious fee fees? poor you. Shame I couldn’t give a monkeys fart about what words you think are acceptable.
Oh and “fuck off tone troll”. That’s what you lot say when someone moans about nasty language isn’t it?
hannanibal
September 13, 2012 at 12:14 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@ Brownian. Fair enough.
Jon
September 13, 2012 at 2:31 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@84 — If using the word “twat” is all it takes to be a misogynist, does that mean A+ is Misandry because many use “dick” as a negative? Hell, at first, rule one was “Don’t be a Dick”.
Or maybe, just maybe, there are more important fucking issues to fix than if someone says words you dont approve of?
Johnnis
September 13, 2012 at 3:07 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Dear Comradde PhysioProffe
I find the accusation you make against John Brown to be offencive.
Please provide either proof or an apology.
coldflesh
September 13, 2012 at 4:02 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This blogpost is a fucking disgrace. So much for moral high-ground huh?
kft
September 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@John Brown
I don’t agree with the way Physioproffe presented the reasoning behind his conclusions here, but after reading the Twitter exchange I agree with the conclusions themselves. This is generally the case for me when it comes to Physioprof, aside from his recipes, which are both excellently presented and excellent in general.
Generally I think that holding the moral high ground is vastly preferable, but given the choice between someone who is mostly correct but guilty of some smaller offences and someone who is mostly incorrect, I think I will choose the person who is mostly correct, because with them I can at least hope that they’ll remedy their mistakes.
John Brown
September 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@kft
So, after reading a short Twitter exchange and unassumingly, my posts in this thread, you’ve come to the conclusion that I am indeed a misogynist and a racist?
And, you further justify deliberate slander (by way of heavy editing, taking quotes out of context, mis-attributing quotes, etc) because you ideologically agree with one person over the other?
Well, that’s good to know.
Because, the underlying conversation is not at all important here, right? It’s all about trolling white, libertarian doodz and mocking their opinions. That’s all that counts.
Certainly not that a person’s reputation is smeared. No, not that. Your team doesn’t do that. Only the other team does that.
Such hypocritical claptrap. How very brave of you.
Johnnis
September 13, 2012 at 12:59 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@kft
“Generally I think that holding the moral high ground is vastly preferable, but given the choice between someone who is mostly correct but guilty of some smaller offences and someone who is mostly incorrect, I think I will choose the person who is mostly correct, because with them I can at least hope that they’ll remedy their mistakes.”
Seriously? What about the truth? Why not just stand on the side of truth? Why side with authority?
Where are your arguments? Do you know how to do critical thinking?
kft
September 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Damn, you know, thinking about this, you’re at least a bit right. On the honesty side of things at least you’re on target. My words in my second post were blind reaction, not careful thought. Better to get that out there now than ignore or deny as I was ready to.
“Because, the underlying conversation is not at all important here, right?”
Well, I still maintain that when the conversation is seen in context, as in the link I linked, you’re in the wrong. The “underlying conversation,” I believe, was about sex work, and I outlined what I thought re: your response in my first post.
John Brown
September 13, 2012 at 4:39 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I may well be wrong, and I’m certainly willing to hear you out on that. I’m not a fundamentalist, afterall…I invite anyone out there to attempt to change my mind.
Assuming the very worst of me and calling me a racist and a misogynist (especially using these tactics) is going to do the exact opposite of changing my mind. It’s going to polarize the issue to the point where there’s no hope of bringing back into the realm of logical discourse.
Being wrong about something is not the same as being a racist or a misogynist.
Can we agree on this point?
Christopher Swing
September 13, 2012 at 10:31 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I learned a lot more about one person that supports DramAtheism/Emoprog Atheism/Atheism “+” than I did about any supposed detractors from this post.
And if this blogger is holding himself up as a good example of The New Thing, I feel assured not being part of it has been a good decision.
Johnnis
September 13, 2012 at 11:49 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m still awaiting proof or apology.
PatrickG
September 14, 2012 at 8:43 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Just one more A+’er weighing to say that this post by physioprof was done very poorly. That said, the other side of the argument has been presented in great detail by the author of those tweets.
Seems like that might be the interesting discussion to be had.
Of course, I’ll continue the derail by just commenting that yes, A+ and libertarianism are incompatible. Here’s one example, from the Libertarian party platform that we’ve been encouraged to read:
Absolute nonsense. Willful idiocy. Complete fact-reversal.
I will completely ignore continued nonsensical arguments until someone can show that:
- smog abatement in Los Angeles was the result of private business action and not government intervention.
- Or that it was government that caused heavy metal contamination in the South San Francisco Bay.
- Or that watershed contamination by MTR is somehow the government’s fault, with private businesses being held accountable for contamination of drinking water.
- Or that the government is totes accountable for a decades-long history of problematic pesticides. BONUS POINTS
- Or… well, I could go on, but really, what’s the point.
In short, show me that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were the product of businesses owning up to mistakes and taking accountability, and I’ll concede you have a point. But I won’t hold my breath.
And it’s not just the environment where libertarianism and A+ completely diverge! Deregulated financial markets? Free market health care? Abolishing Social Security? An asinine prescription for protesting climate change as the most effective course of action? Flying Spaghetti Monster save us from just-world idealists who sincerely believe that if we just screamed “FREEDOM!” loudly enough, the world would become a paradise. Save us even more, oh FSM, from the people who clearly don’t give a fuck about other people (you know, libertarians).
Oh, and by what possible contortion of reasoning can a skeptical libertarian atheist possibly make arguments for “restor[ing] authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.” Are you batshit insane? You want more religious homeschooling? As ATHEISTS?
A+ is incompatible with the Libertarian platform. There are some agreements in the area of social and civil rights, but even there, the libertarian anti-government stance will actively cause harm. Just because government has the ability to restrict rights does not mean that non-government associations of individuals can’t do the same fucking thing. Sheesh.
*Oh, and to be clear, of course the government is responsible for environmental contamination. Military SUPERFUND sites come to mind (but wait, SUPERFUND is… government being accountable! So don’t even pretend like this is a valid argument.)
PatrickG
September 14, 2012 at 8:44 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Woops, hit submit too soon:
BONUS POINTS for showing that research into Colony Collapse Disorder would totes have happened without government involvement.
John Brown
September 14, 2012 at 8:57 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You know, I’ve never voted libertarian my entire life. I don’t support any libertarian candidates on the ballot this year and I don’t necessarily subscribe to the platform.
You see, there’s this thing called nuance. Not all libertarians are political partisans. Many of us (a great, great many) just have a wider libertarian outlook about things, rather than a political outlook.
See, what’s happened here is a label was assigned to me (a label I assigned to myself, admittedly, though without the adjectives “racist, misogynistic, white, or d00d” attached,” and people were more than willing to jump at the opportunity to put me in their own little ideological box. It’s a massive strawman.
In point of fact, you have no idea if libertarians are incompatible with A+ because you haven’t explored the matter other than looking at a national party platform and then assigning those beliefs to any libertarian you come across. It would be like me looking at the Democratic national party platform and assigning you (if you’re a Democrat, that is) the burden of every single point presented without first asking your views on the matter.
Does that seem fair to you?
Regardless, I still hold that the OP’s actions were something other than “poor.” They were slanderous.
PatrickG
September 14, 2012 at 9:13 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@ John Brown:
Sorry, I should have been clearer. My comment was directed at JustAtheist, who said:
I attempted to make that clear by saying I was continuing the derailing, but in retrospect, that was in no way evident. My post really had nothing to do with you (hence the derailing comment).
I’d disagree with your characterization of “slander”, but I’ll up my “poor” to “a truly inept and unfair post”. That’s based on my familiarity with physioprof’s work, which isn’t comprehensive, but I’m willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, as long as he doesn’t do this again, and acknowledges a mistake here. To echo Brownian: “bad physioprof”.
PatrickG
September 14, 2012 at 9:21 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well, considering that I’ve met several libertarians who serve as local leaders in their groups and receive mild local publicity (through radio and podcasts), I’m fairly confident in my assessment.
I do want to make a slight distinction here: libertarianism does come in several flavors. I’ve described myself as a civil libertarian on more than one occasion. I’ve heard people describe themselves as social libertarians, and I tend to agree with their position.
Economic or fiscal libertarians, though, I find to be dishonest, borderline sociopathic in their disregard for the harm that would result from their positions, and in general motivated by narcissism and greed. Again, talking about the ones I’ve personally met.
I think it would greatly serve civil/social libertarians to find a way to dissociate themselves from the neoliberal free market policies that have had such a disastrous effect on human welfare. Especially since those policies lead directly to power gains by people who really dislike civil/social liberties.
[ANECDOTE ALERT] Hell, I was a fellow Boy Scout with someone who later appeared in my social circles. I see him at parties every now and then, and we tend to avoid each other. :)
He argued to my face (as someone with a MSc in Environmental Engineering) that acid rain abatement was hindered by government action, and would have been taken care of faster if there were no government agencies involved. CFCs and ozone depletion were entirely a free market solution, according to him. Oh, and he wanted to abolish the EPA. To protect the environment(!). In short, he was fully on board with the Libertarian party platform.
I was more polite then, which is why I avoid him now, since I’d prefer not to cause scenes at someone else’s party. But yeesh, what willful idiocy.
/wall of text, and I’m off for a few hours.
PatrickG
September 14, 2012 at 9:29 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well, I could tell you where the platform and I disagree (and yes, I am a registered Democrat). But if you’re not an economic/free-market libertarian of the flavor I denigrate above, then you putatively disagree with 85% of the party platform that shares the name of your political ideology.
Maybe you’re not actually a libertarian? Could you be… a Libertarian+? ;)
[And now I'm really out the door]
trinioler
September 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hey John Brown,
Care to actually explain how libertarianism is compatible with A+?
See, what you’re doing is a defense commonly mocked as “sophisticated theology”, where religious people claim that we’ve not read the right stuff, else why would we make such claims?
They never say WHAT we’re supposed to read that is a sophisticated defense, and you’re not doing it now.
Oh, and explain how without using vague platitudes about freedom.
Explain how libertarianism would have resolved the civil rights issues of the 60′s without government intervention.
Explain how libertarianism would provide a solution to missing Planned Parenthood clinics when they get defunded?
Come on.
Oh, and none of that “invisible hand” bullshit. It didn’t work prior to the fed(20-30 different currencies, regular boom-bust cycle, no regulations, etc), so how is it to work now?
John Brown
September 14, 2012 at 3:03 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@trinioler
Congratulations on so violently missing my point. Given our conversations to date, this seems to be a hobby of yours of which you spend a great deal of time and effort cultivating.
I would invite you to go back and read my post to pluck out the nuance, but come on…what’s the point?
Dana
September 17, 2012 at 7:50 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why is this one half of a conversation? Can you fix that? I can’t believe how dishonest this is.
neuralobserver
September 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
(chuckling…) And these drama kings and queens are actually referring to many non-racist, non-sexist atheists with valid concerns about the over-the-top, reactionary antics of this ‘Atheist plus’ tripe, as the ‘asshats’????
Please, someone get Myers and these dopes a mirror. Me thinks the buttock meat hangs low over their eyes.
FfTB ‘APlusScribe’ mendaciously paints critic of “AtheismPlus” cult as white supremacist « elevatorgate
September 12, 2012 at 9:24 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] only published edited excerpts : Just So You Know The Kind Of People Who Find Atheism+ Threatening Here’s a nice one. Clueless [...]