Comments

  1. Narf says

    Cool, can’t wait to catch the podcast.  I’m a big fan, even if I can’t relate to a lot of what she went through.

  2. says

    “Why is feminism needed?”

    Because of patriarchal insecurity.

    Back in the day — a million or so years ago — when physical strength and predatory tendencies were ASSETS to feed your family/clan/group, men were “in charge” almost by default. But today, with the survival imperative conquered (and even NEGATED), these traits are no longer even needed. But to MANY men, those same traits are part of the definition of manhood for them. They are unable to let go of the “caveman” definition.

    MANY feminists have my 100% support; almost exclusively, though, they START with the inward AND outward attitude of “I AM good enough”, and go from there. Nothing to prove, they simply DO. Those that ACT like the typical “kept woman” or stereotypical submissive, yet insist that they be GIVEN equality…THOSE, I have a problem with.

    Don’t demand equality with me on the job, for example, and then refuse to climb a fucking STEPLADDER because you’re “afraid of heights”.

  3. Ethan says

    After all this time, Jasper is still this wilfully ignorant? This guy is harder to get to than religious people… :/

  4. says

    “Racism”, as MLK defined it, is a point of contention for me. What he defined is “INSTITUTIONALIZED racism”, which is different. Racism is, simply, prejudicial negative opinions about other people BASED ON THEIR RACE. It’s NOT just ONE WAY.

    This is likely an inflammatory example, but it’s one I SEE all too frequently: if a young black man drops out of school just before going to high school (because they tired of having to conform to ANYTHING), then they can’t get a job, it’s NOT “THE WHITE MAN’S FAULT”. I HAVE seen examples of the school system MISERABLY FAILING black male students, and that is HEINOUS. It’s also somewhat racist. But it’s NOT racist to see a young black man walking out of school, and not TACKLING HIM and bringing him back.

  5. says

    Muhammad’s multi-point argument has more holes than a window screen. I’ll stipulate to premise 1 (yes, I disagree with Matt). Premise 2, as well. PREMISE 3 is utter BULLSHIT, since that is a leap — “possible in one world, possible in all” is a presupposition that MUST be proven. It also negates 4, 5, AND 6.

  6. says

    “If a maximally great being exists in one possible world, it must exist in all possible worlds.”

    Has any philosopher ever seriously argued in favor of this claim? On what logical or philosophical basis could one possibly get from “one possible” to “all?”

  7. says

    Just wanted to say this was an awesome show today! I really wish Heina would move to Austin or something. 😀

    @Mark
    What’s your reason that you grant the first premise?

  8. Narf says

    @Mark Brewster

    Back in the day — a million or so years ago — when physical strength and predatory tendencies were ASSETS to feed your family/clan/group, men were “in charge” almost by default. But today, with the survival imperative conquered (and even NEGATED), these traits are no longer even needed. But to MANY men, those same traits are part of the definition of manhood for them. They are unable to let go of the “caveman” definition.

    I think there’s a component that is much simpler than that, too.  Men have the position of power.  People in power are loathe to give up their position of privilege.

    This is why the conservative elements of society are a natural ally for the subjugation of women.  They are, kind of by definition, in favor of the status quo, which is men being on top, historically, in our species.

  9. noexitlovenow says

    Personally, I think you should refuse to get into discussions of feminism, gun control, libertarianism, etc. I probably agree with you more than not, but I think it just encourages the jackasses to call. Also, it is an Atheist show. You should stick to the topic.

  10. Narf says

    @noexitlovenow
    I know some people who apply that rule to the rest of their conversations, too, which is probably a good decision for their sanity.  😀

    Right there with you then.  If it isn’t a theist calling in to preach Paul at us heathens who empower women, whom their god has properly subjugated, then it’s a little off-topic usually.  The problem is that a good deal of what Heina blogs about deals with feminst issues, so it’s hard to take that off the table, when she’s on the show.

  11. Wiggle Puppy says

    @#4 Anticitizenx has a good deconstruction of the modal ontological argument on his Youtube channel, but the basic idea is this: the argument defines God as a maximally-great being, the properties of which include the property of existence, because a thing that exists is greater than a thing that doesn’t exist. So you’re just assuming the thing you’re trying to prove – God’s existence – in your definition, without any demonstration that that definition bears any relation to anything in the actual world. There are many more problems, notably that “maximally great” makes no sense because greatness is an unbounded property – think of trying to determine the maximally-large integer – but the main problem is that you’re just defining something with the property of existence, which doesn’t get anywhere.

  12. Monocle Smile says

    @tacitus
    Yes, that’s Alvin Plantinga’s modal logic version of the ontological argument. It’s word salad, as far as I can tell. It’s one of the dumbest ways to attempt to define a god into existence. It’s little more than “I say god exists, so therefore he exists.” The property of “greatness” is entirely undefined, perhaps intentionally.

  13. Monocle Smile says

    @Mark Brewster
    Mostly agreed.

    Don’t demand equality with me on the job, for example, and then refuse to climb a fucking STEPLADDER because you’re “afraid of heights”

    Sure, as long as the dude who’s afraid of heights gets a pay cut as well.

  14. Monocle Smile says

    The gender wage gap appears to be closer than “advocated”…until you examine salary brackets. The gap is of course extremely close for minimum wage-ish jobs because of course it is. That slants the numbers as a whole. The 77% number is pretty damn accurate in the medical field, for instance.

  15. Monocle Smile says

    Fuckin’ Jasper. Right near the end he unraveled entirely. “People get death threats all the time” stuck with me.

  16. NomadLand says

    I’ve noticed that since the switch to the new studio/Skype setup, there is an almost total lack of theist callers. For me, the theist calls were always the most interesting parts of the program. Is the non-traditional (no TV, no phone) delivery method just reaching a smaller audience?

  17. Malcolm Rupert says

    I think Mohamad, and many other people, are conflating the word possible with plausible. I think Premise one is false but I (tentatively) agree with premise two because I think that it is essentially the definition of the word `possible’. Great show Matt and Heina!

  18. Robert,+not+Bob says

    I got the impression Jasper was trying to sneak up on his final points, so as not to seem too poisonous too soon. Ravel’s Bolero in conversation form.

    That last call-well, that’s what the show has always been about. I can see him reading it from a printout on a clipboard… Really, there’s no point in going past the first argument, since “maximally great” is gibberish. How do you measure that-is there some device that shows I’ve achieved 2 microAlexanders?

  19. says

    As a guy I have the same issue with not being very proactive in negotiating pay also. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to cover this issue addressing people in general? Granted it affects different people in different ways but wouldn’t tackling it generally and educating everyone experiencing this issue on how to address the problem rather than separating one issue into categories. Or am I missing the point?

  20. tarski says

    #7, #8

    That’s one way of putting modal Axiom 5. It’s my impression that most philosophers who think modal logic is a good way to capture our talk about possibility and necessity also think that Axiom 5 captures our talk of what is “metaphysically” possible or necessary. It turns out to be a hard axiom to deny: you’d have to say of at least one sentence X that “possibly X is true, and possibly X can’t possibly be true,” which is fine if you mean “possible for all we know” but is problematic if you’re talking about “possible in some general metaphysical sense.”

    The argument still runs into problems even if you accept Axiom 5.

    The claim that god’s existence is possible metaphysically or logically, rather than just possible for all we know, is a lot harder to justify. It amounts to saying that every atheist argument claiming that a relevant concept of god is logically inconsistent is a wrong argument, and indeed that no such argument can succeed. Alvin Plantinga, the philosopher whose version of the argument this is, understood that the premise “god is metaphyically/logically possible” was quite strong. He doesn’t pretend that the argument proves that god exists, just that it proves that if it’s reasonable to grant the premise, then it’s reasonable to grant the conclusion—and of course he thinks it’s reasonable to grant the premise. But this works both ways: if it’s reasonable to deny the conclusion, then it’s reasonable to deny the premise. As I understand it, this last observation is one of the main critiques of the argument in philosophy.

    Another problem with the argument is that it proves too much. You can copy the formal reasoning but substitute any other definition where you define something to be unique at all possible worlds, and then conclude that this new thing exists. You can even take this to satirical levels and prove the existence of a being who is maximally able and maximally desirous (and maximally whatever else you like) to destroy everything, and then conclude that since this being exists, presumably the world has been destroyed.

  21. gshelley says

    Matt’s answer to the first point is pretty similar to what I would say – I don’t know if it is possible that a maximally great being exists. I would grant that it is possible that it is possible. If you think about it then this is obvious. If there was no maximally great being, then it probably wouldn’t even be possible for one to exist.
    the other fairly obvious flaw is that it swaps “it is possible there is a world where a maximally great being exists” with “there is a possible world where a maximally great being exists”, without even noting those are two totally different statements.
    And that doesn’t even take into account it has the same issues with the more traditional ontological argument, that maximally great is not defined

  22. Rex says

    Did anybody notice that Heina called Jasper “honey” at least three times? When Jasper tried to call her out on it, both Heina and Matt sort of ignored the comment. How is that not hypocritical? Was she doing it subtly to make a point? Or to try and get under his skin? Not that I was supporting Jasper’s viewpoint, but as they say, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

    BTW, the sound quality is getting better and better, thanks. Several of the shows recently were not watchable due to the audio.

  23. corwyn says

    Imagine a function F(x) which takes an existent ‘being’ and computes its ‘greatness’.

    Can you imagine everyone agreeing on the output, if we confine ourselves to just humans for X? I can’t.

    But if we did find a function that everyone agreed on, then there would of course be an existent being for which the function was maximal (including ties) because (among other things) the number of existent beings is finite. We could determine whether Elon Musk is ‘greater’ than Bill Gates. We could *NOT* decide whether Carl Sagan is ‘greater’ than Superman since the Sup doesn’t fit the criteria for which the function is defined.

    We can NOT imagine a similar function, which gives a maximal value for some X, for the infinite number of non-existent beings we could imagine.

    Since both theists and atheists are in agreement that the only beings worth considering for this question are existent ones, the first function should be sufficient. By putting the ‘must exist’ constraint on the input rather than as part of the function itself, we resolve one of the major problems with this argument.

  24. corwyn says

    I don’t know if it is possible that a maximally great being exists. I would grant that it is possible that it is possible.

    I read this four times, and still can’t get it to make any sense.

    What probability are you assigning to “it is possible that a maximally great being exists” that you aren’t assigning to “a maximally great being exists”?

  25. says

    Personally, I think you should refuse to get into discussions of feminism, gun control, libertarianism, etc. I probably agree with you more than not, but I think it just encourages the jackasses to call. Also, it is an Atheist show. You should stick to the topic.

    According to the intro, one of the topics is “the promotion of positive atheist culture.”

    Under that rubric, practically nothing is off topic.

    Also, isn’t jackasses calling in part of the entertainment?

  26. AdamF says

    I simply can’t seem to wrap my head around why feminism is such an apparent threat to some guys? Seriously. Women are often not treated fairly. That’s a problem. Let’s try and solve it. What’s to disagree with?! The anecdotes of my own life (as a son, husband to a fellow scientist, and as a dad with two daughters) are consistent with global statistics and the daily news. I simply don’t see much room for serious disagreement with what many feminists stand for?!

    Anyways…great show! I hope Heina returns in the future!

  27. Bugmaster says

    Can we maybe have two separate shows — one strictly about atheism, and another one about social justice with an atheistic flavor ? This way, theist callers who are interested in talking to (or, let’s face it, converting) atheists will (hopefully) call into the first show more often — due to its much tighter focus.

    Having two shows must have been unthinkable in the past, but now that there are no limitations imposed by the TV studio, the barrier to entry must be quite a bit lower…

  28. Russell Glasser says

    Hey, here’s a great idea! If you want a different show in which your atheism is undiluted by feminism or social justice — try creating that show! Because The Atheist Experience is not the one you’re looking for.

  29. Russell Glasser says

    Yep, you can go watch Thunder’s videos all day. One guy recentlyemailed us and said he hopes TF will totally take us down. Go wait for him to do that.

  30. Narf says

    @Bugmaster
    They already do two shows, man.  How many more do you want them to do?  Yes, they have the equipment available whenever they want it, but they have to get the hosts down there plus the tech crew, for every single show.  They’re volunteers, you know.

    Besides, they already get too few topics as it is.  Do you really want to have them kick a theist off the line, because he isn’t talking strictly about the pure atheist/theist duality?  Then we can have more atheists calling in, giving the hosts verbal fellatio.

    Besides, isn’t the biggest problem that we have with the current religious situation that fact that the fundies have taken over our political process and are trying to impose their conservative, misogynistic, anti-science bullshit onto the rest of us?  Yes, I’d oppose theists for the pure irrationality of it, even if we just had a bunch of liberal theists, but the activity of the fundamentalists is what really gets me going.

    So, how about the calls challenging biological evolution?  Should they just not take those, because the subject doesn’t directly address atheism/theism?  Why is evolution ruled in, but the misogynistic, patriarchal bullshit gets ruled out?

    What you’re proposing is so silly.

  31. Russell Glasser says

    It’s almost as if people want us to form some kind of exclusionary group that intentionally avoids such topics altogether. An “Atheism Minus,” if you will.

  32. Narf says

    @Russell
    Whooooah, easy there man.  You don’t want to get those two together, or you’ll get an Atheism+/Atheism- explosion.

    What’s funny is that you don’t have to stretch my lame joke/comparison very far at all to make it fit … or stretch it at all, really.

  33. Bugmaster says

    @Narf/Russell:
    I know you meant to mock me, but I’ve got to admit, you’re absolutely right ! After I discovered the show, I’ve watched all of the old AXP episodes that I could find, and I really liked them because of their tight focus. There are plenty of talk shows where you can discuss politics, social justice, or whatever; but, until then, I have not seen a show that said, “hey, we’re atheists, and here’s what we believe about the basic nature of the physical world”. Just to name one example, I have met plenty of religious people who were both pro and anti social justice; but I’ve very rarely met a religious person who understood what it’s like to really, truly disbelieve in any kind of a deity — and I think AXP did a good job of bridging that gap.

    I would be sad to see that focus disappear, and for AXP to turn into yet another social justice podcast (albeit with an atheistic flavor). I do want more theists to call in, as opposed to — full disclosure — people like myself who are just calling in to argue against trigger warnings in textbooks or whatever.

    But hey, it’s your show ! You can do whatever you want with it. I wasn’t giving you any kind of an order, I was just voicing my opinion (which, admittedly, is in the minority on this blog). Thus, I think your hostility is somewhat unwarranted; but then again, I can respect your passion even if I disagree with your conclusions.

  34. Narf says

    @Bugmaster
    Well, I was trying to mock fairly lightly.  I probably failed on that count, but there you go.  The same often works on me.

    Basically, walk through the ridiculous extremes to which things would go, if the current proposal was applied consistently, and if it comes back all weird and fucked up, you say, “Whoah, that doesn’t work quite like I thought.  Let’s take this back to basics and see what I’m actually going for here.”

    And once I brought up Thunderf00t, we kept running with abusing him … you know, because it’s fun.

  35. Random Listener says

    @Russell

    If the “+” in “A+” stands for social movements, then removing the plus doesn’t create “Atheism-“…just plain old Atheism.

    > It’s almost as if people want us to form some kind of exclusionary group that intentionally avoids such topics altogether.
    >An “Atheism Minus,” if you will. – RG

    BTW, your earlier comment about how people should go make their own show if they don’t like TAE reminds me of the “America – love it or leave it” dogma. Not a great way to reach out to fans who are simply providing feedback.

    > Hey, here’s a great idea! If you want a different show in which your atheism is undiluted by feminism or social justice —
    > try creating that show! Because The Atheist Experience is not the one you’re looking for. – RG

    @Narf, if the caller’s misogynistic position is predicated upon a theistic belief (eg. god doesn’t want women to be literate or drive), then we have (IMHO) a valid tie-in to atheism. If there is no tie to atheism at all (eg. women shouldn’t drive because they’re women/estrogen), then it might not be the right call for TAE.

    To further answer your question, evolution usually gets “ruled in” because most non-evolutionists are creationists; a position with a theistic foundation. Even Matt has said that people who want to debate the science, itself, should call a science show. However if the caller wants to argue they’re right because an old religious book says so, then the call is on point.

    > Why is evolution ruled in, but the misogynistic, patriarchal bullshit gets ruled out? – Narf

  36. Narf says

    Basically, when you have a call-in show, you take whatever comes in.  You can pick amongst your various options, but you still only have what you’re given to work with.  And when you have a guest who focuses a lot more on a specific angle of the main theme of the show, you showcase a bit, for one episode.

    It isn’t a recurring thing.  You don’t have to freak out because one episode went this direction.

    And you and I are remembering a completely different archive of the show.  I remember calls going way the hell all over the place.  Sure, there were a lot more theists, when they only had local Austin callers to work with, but some of those people were nothing approaching focused.

    They had a lot more calls that started with, “So, you’re atheists.  So, what do you worship instead of God?”  Those calls can sometimes be funny, but they don’t tend to be particularly informative, and eventually, after you get 5 in one show, they get kind of old.

  37. Random Listener says

    @Narf

    Who’s freaking out?

    > You don’t have to freak out because one episode went this direction.

  38. noexitlovenow says

    Sally Strange, Then it becomes the call in and argue about anything hour. This might be interesting for some, but then call it “The Argument Experience” or something like that. Better yet, keep “The Atheist Experience” and argue about god and religion, and start a new program called the “Argument Experience” so that people who want to argue about Libertarianism, Socialism, Feminism, Modern Money Theory, the gold standard, whether Brown Shoes are acceptable, The Loch Ness Monster, Common Core, Obama care, Bernie!, Jeb!, Veganism, Atkins, 911 truth, the labor theory of value, etc can all call in and argue for our amusement.

    I also worry that if you argue anything under the banner of “The Atheist Experience” then Atheism gets associated with whatever the host is arguing – when as we know Atheism is a single answer to a single question. You don’t need to be a liberal, a feminist, or hold any particular opinion about any particular thing other than that to be an Atheist.

    I’m always defending feminism, but it is what it is and it is not Atheism.

  39. Narf says

    @Random Listener

    @Narf, if the caller’s misogynistic position is predicated upon a theistic belief (eg. god doesn’t want women to be literate or drive), then we have (IMHO) a valid tie-in to atheism. If there is no tie to atheism at all (eg. women shouldn’t drive because they’re women/estrogen), then it might not be the right call for TAE.

    When you find someone who makes the women/estrogen argument who isn’t using it as a cover for their fundamentalist religious beliefs, let me know.

    It’s exactly the same as the Republican party coming up with all of these bullshit reasons that allowing gay marriage is bad.  That’s just a smokescreen for their religious crap.

  40. noexitlovenow says

    Also, it is frustrating when you tune into “The Atheist Experience” and most of the show has been hijacked by a libertarian or anti-feminist.

  41. StonedRanger says

    I find it fascinating that one conversation about feminism and the antifeminist crowd comes out of the woodwork to whine about it. ATHEISM may be about a lack of belief in a god/gods, but the show is called The Atheist Experience. Atheists are more than just atheists. They are liberals, conservatives, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro gay marriage, anti gay marriage, etc… There are as many viewpoints to be found among the atheist crowd as there are people in it. There isn’t any one topic that is or isn’t allowed on here because in the end they are all valid as they are just other things that atheists have opinions on. If you don’t like the content of the current show youre watching, youre under no obligation to watch it. But you don’t get to tell everyone else what they can/should get to watch based upon your likes/dislikes. What Russell said was not akin to ‘America love it or leave it’. It was exactly as he stated it. If you don’t like it, feel free to start your own show. You don’t get to dictate to them how they decide to run their own show. How is that hard to understand?

    Great show, and many thanks to Heina for her input on todays show. I really never had a chance to hear you speak before and all I can say Is “Daaaaamn! You go get em and give em hell. Well done.”

  42. Wiggle Puppy says

    @45 Geez, Bugmaster, they have one show (out of 900+) with a guest co-host who blogs about feminism and you’re worried about them losing focus? Do you not remember the 30 minutes given to Guy and “godhood” like a week ago? You really are pretty out there. Get some perspective, and quickly!

  43. Russell Glasser says

    By the way, if your main point is that Matt could have hung up on that caller sooner and moved on to something else, I’m not even arguing with that. I don’t think I would have let him stay on if I took that call. But that was Matt’s decision, and I respect his right to do what he wants with the callers when he hosts.

  44. Yeti says

    I found it pretty funny you could hear the laughter in the background as jasper was going on his rants.

    @rex #30 i also noticed she called him honey. I can’t decide if I think it was intended to be patronizing or just one of those things that slip into conversation accidentally.

    About the show in general: I have no problem with other topics being discussed, but I do think jasper should have gotten cut off earlier since he did monopolize a lot of the time and it didn’t seem to be going anywhere. That’s just my opinion though.

    Also it seemed like a lot of the technical issues have been cleaned up, good job on that front!

  45. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @corwyn

    I don’t know if it is possible that a maximally great being exists. I would grant that it is possible that it is possible.

    I read this four times, and still can’t get it to make any sense.

    What probability are you assigning to “it is possible that a maximally great being exists” that you aren’t assigning to “a maximally great being exists”?

    I suspect that when this person wrote “possible that it’s possible”, they simply meant “I believe it’s epistemically possible that the existence of X is physically possible consistent with the laws of physics and the rules of reality”, which really is just a long-form way of saying “I believe that the existence of X is epistemically possible”, which is simply an expression of ignorance and knowledge. The speaker is expressing that there is a bet with a lopsided payout for the existence which the speaker would be willing to take and expect to have positive average net winnings.

    The problem is that Tracie has started a … mere? … around here that “X is possible” without clarification always means “physically possible” aka “the claim that X is consistent with the laws of physics and the rules of nature (with assumed high degree of confidence)”, rather than “epistemically possible” aka “the position that the speaker has assigned non-trivial odds for his estimation of the truth of X”.

    I wish more people thought like Bayesians. I wish that more people thought in terms of probabilities and estimates. I don’t like the way of thinking of Tracie on this matter. Tracie is first assuming an absolute set of rules of physics, and thinking in terms of that absolute physics. Of course, Tracie doesn’t claim to know these rules of physics exactly. However, I still don’t like framing discussions of possibility in the context of an assumed absolute set of rules of physics. Tracie’s answer “I don’t know if it’s possible – if it’s consistent with the absolute rules of physics” I think is thinking about it wrongly. Rather, I would say “I don’t know with absolute confidence what the rules of physics are, and I don’t know with absolute confidence that the rules of physics are unchanging, and so I don’t know if what you say is possible – possible because it’s consistent with phyiscs, or possible because my knowledge of physics is wrong, or possible because physics will change tomorrow to allow for your claim”. To emphasize: This is a really, really minor nit, and it’s very philosophical, and I’m probably taking this way overboard.

  46. noexitlovenow says

    @Russell Glasser
    My main point is that Matt could have hung up on that caller sooner and moved on to something else. I’m also arguing that the show would be better if he had done.

    He did the same thing once with a libertarian caller as well, and while he may have enjoyed the argument, that show also became something other than “The Atheist Experience”.

    P.S. I’m neither a libertarian nor an anti-feminist. I generally hate those guys. In fact, one reason I’m opposed to this is I needed to listen to these chuckle-heads instead of “The Atheist Experience”.

  47. Jeremiah says

    Yeah, they should stick to being “the atheist experience” where they only talk about not having any evidence to agree that a god exists. Any discussion about gay rights, separation of church and state, etc. should be off the table, because that’s off topic. Dictionary atheism for the win.

  48. Fair Witness says

    Being a regular viewer, I know that feminism is not discussed very often, and likely will not be a major topic in the future. If Matt perhaps let the call go longer than he otherwise would have, just in deference to Heina’s presence, I support that completely. I enjoyed listening to, and I learned a few things, from her responses. And Matt seemed sensitive to giving her plenty of chances to talk, which I was glad to see.

  49. corwyn says

    Quick comment on technical issues. The color balance between cameras was off.
    Thanks to all the volunteers.

  50. Narf says

    @noexitlovenow

    @Russell Glasser
    My main point is that Matt could have hung up on that caller sooner and moved on to something else. I’m also arguing that the show would be better if he had done.

    And I completely disagree, including with Russell, possibly, depending upon what he meant about hanging up on Jasper sooner.  If I interpret what he said to mean that he would have hung up on Jasper because he personally … Russell … would have run out of things to say sooner, then fine.

    But we didn’t have Russell in that seat; we had Matt.  Matt has a hell of a lot more to say on the issue of feminism than Russell, because … well, look at the person Matt married.  When you’re married to someone who is such a strong advocate for a position, you can’t help but get a little rubbed off onto you.  Since Matt was already a pretty strong feminist to begin with, I think, putting him together with Beth radicalized him.

    So, between Heina and Matt, they kept giving out good information and making good points the whole damned way through the call.  Even when Jasper went a bit over-the-top, near the end of the call, he was still useful as a springboard to make important points. I wouldn’t toss any of it.

    He did the same thing once with a libertarian caller as well, and while he may have enjoyed the argument, that show also became something other than “The Atheist Experience”.

    I know Stitcher fucks up sometimes, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t get switched over to another podcast, partway through.  Maybe the show went on hiatus for a week, and Stitcher accidentally subbed in another podcast, due to some sort of programming error.

    Oh well.  TAE will be back next week, after the hiatus.

  51. Raucous Indignation says

    I just watched #937. It was a very welcome change from the usual warmed-over Pascal’s wager and argument’s from ignorance crap. Heina Dadabhoy was an excellent co-host for Matt and opened up the show to all sorts of new sexist and racist crap. New and interesting crap. Enjoyed it immensely. You should run more guests that identify as more than atheists.

  52. gshelley says

    @Corwyn
    The proposition was “it’s possible that a god exists”
    I can’t agree to this, I also am not going to dismiss it entirely, I just don’t know (which is where I think Mat was)
    So, if I can’t say “yes it’s possible” and I can’t say “no it’s not possible”, that leaves “it might be possible”

  53. LawnBoy says

    Ironic Paraphrase Theater presents…

    Matt: “Well, we’ve talked about feminism enough, but let’s get to a call about atheism.”
    Jasper: “No, this is relevant.”
    Matt: “Why is that?”
    Jasper: “You guys talk about feminism too much, and you don’t talk about just atheism enough.”

    Scene

  54. Soldout in BB says

    Regarding the first caller from Israel, trying to communicate over Facebook with his family about their new found faith.

    I’ve found that when you ask people questions, they go on the defensive, so I prefer to make a personal statement rather than ask a question.

    Example:
    Your sister writes “I am so happy with my love for Jesus.”

    You reply “For me, happiness comes from the majesty of the universe and the breadth of scientific understanding about how it works.”

  55. Narf says

    @Raucous Indignation
    Whoops, someone didn’t read the script.  We’re supposed to all be outraged that they weren’t spending the whole time talking about pure atheism, preferably the cosmological argument or Pascal’s Wager.  Get with the program, man.  😛

  56. Monocle Smile says

    @Sean Moran
    Sure…if that were the only issue at hand. Feminism is about addressing the large host of issues that affect women to a much higher degree than men. That’s not to say that some of those issues aren’t shared by men, of course, but feminism is broader than any one issue.
    Think of it this way…the NAACP exists. There are also white people who suffer some of the same social and economic setbacks as minorities. But the NAACP still has very good reason to exist today and should exist, and wondering if the NAACP should include Caucasians as well does indeed miss the point. Or think of the “#AllLivesMatter” tweets. Those miss the point as well, even though non-black people are also killed by police.
    The lines aren’t perfectly black and white, but they’re not all that grey, either.

  57. Mas says

    @Narf 64
    I think noexitlove is referring to a stretch last year where libertarians took up large chunks of the show. One starts at 888.31:25 (Jared from Georgia), which goes on for seventeen minutes and culminates in the caller lamenting being born into a “slavery of debt” to the government. Another starts at 890.8:40 (Robbie from Houston, who to me sounds a bit like Ray Comfort) for just under twenty minutes. He also does not want socialized roads, etc. Matt apologizes to the next caller, “Sorry for that. That took a lot longer than I thought.” Despite being told not to call back, I think there are a couple more shorter calls from Robbie.

  58. corwyn says

    @66 gshelly

    Thanks, that I can understand.

    For me, though ‘it is possible’ translates to ‘there is a non-zero probability’, ‘it is not possible’ translates to ‘there is zero probability’ which means ‘it is logically contradictory’ (or in other contexts, ‘it defies the laws of physics’). ‘it might be possible’ therefore means ‘you haven’t given me anything obviously contradictory yet.’

  59. corwyn says

    could have hung up on that caller sooner and moved on to something else

    Just a reminder to folks. We listeners do not usually know the state of the call queue. It could be that there are no other callers.

    Also, get your proselytizing theists friends to call…

  60. Micah Femino says

    Jasper has a youtube channel somewhere – I know I’ve heard that voice
    and that bad logic
    and the horrible gotcha type line of logic

    I can’t place him.

    He sounds like a Breitbart guy.
    Is he Totalbiscuit? No totalbiscuit is british… is he thunderf00t? Maybe?
    Sargon of Akaad?
    “Jasper” knew she was going to be on the show – and was so excited to insult feminism – that was not some random caller. He is probably an internet stalker of some sort.

  61. Russell Glasser says

    And I completely disagree, including with Russell, possibly, depending upon what he meant about hanging up on Jasper sooner. If I interpret what he said to mean that he would have hung up on Jasper because he personally … Russell … would have run out of things to say sooner, then fine.

    But we didn’t have Russell in that seat; we had Matt. Matt has a hell of a lot more to say on the issue of feminism than Russell, because … well, look at the person Matt married.

    You clearly know absolutely nothing about the situation or my reasons, if you think it’s because Matt has a better grasp of feminism than I do.

    The problem is that when you are a recognizable feminist online — as Heina is — you have to swat off these kinds of clueless MRAs non-stop. It is not only tedious but also dehumanizing, much as if you were a homosexual who was forced to have conversations with Westboro Baptists on a regular basis. I’m not saying Matt and Heina aren’t capable of dealing with it. I’m not saying I’m not capable of dealing with it. I am saying that it felt a little rude to me to be wasting the guest’s time with something that she wasn’t necessarily there to discuss, and spend half the show on it.

    I like speaking to theists, creationists, conspiracy theorists, whatever, at great length, as long as they are respectful and the conversation is productive. All the hosts do, however, exercise the judgement to end a call when it is going nowhere and the caller is not taking the issue seriously. I have spoken to Charlie Check’m about his homophobic bullshit on many occasions, but I do not let him monopolize half the show on his agenda.

    Hosts have the responsibility to hang up on a call that is not productive; my take is that Heina deserved to have her time respected a little more.

    This has nothing to do with me caring less about women’s issues, and fuck you if you think it does. And another fuck you from Lynnea, who is annoyed that you implied she is not a feminist either.

  62. says

    Bugmaster #35: Can we maybe have two separate shows — one strictly about atheism, and another one about social justice with an atheistic flavor ?

    A show strictly about atheism.

    What on earth would you talk about?

    Remember, as I’ve been told over and over again when trying to bring my particular concerns as a queer woman to the table of organized/movement atheism: Atheism is strictly the lack of belief in god/gods, nothing more and nothing less.

    Under that definition, even taking callers from theists and trying to answer existential questions about how/whether the universe began, how we derive ethics, whether evolution is true, etc., would be off topic. So would discussing such common subjects of atheist activism such as separation of church and state and getting good science education in primary schools.

    Check your double standards, man.

    Other people have said what I was going to say, but heck, I’ll go on.

    at #45: But hey, it’s your show ! You can do whatever you want with it. I wasn’t giving you any kind of an order, I was just voicing my opinion (which, admittedly, is in the minority on this blog). Thus, I think your hostility is somewhat unwarranted; but then again, I can respect your passion even if I disagree with your conclusions.

    You think the responses to you were hostility? Trying being perceived as female on the internet. Or black and female. Or queer or trans. Come on, man. I’m starting to get the urge to give you the same “advice” so many trolls have given me: get a thicker skin. Grow up. Stop whining.

    You perceived “hostility” where there really wasn’t any. That’s probably an artifact of deeply ingrained sexist prejudices, but if I mention that, are you going to think that I’m accusing you of being a he-man woman-hater? Are you capable of interrogating your own biases through a somewhat objective lens? Your comments fit a pattern, and that pattern is a sexist pattern. The pattern is this: double standards apply for whether a topic is relevant to “atheism.” If it’s sciencey or involves putting down religious people, it’s on topic. If it’s social justice-y and involves asking atheists to think critically about their own sexist/racist/whatever biases, it’s off topic. If called out about double standards, whine about hostility.

    This happens all the time. You can test it.

    Random Listener #47:

    BTW, your earlier comment about how people should go make their own show if they don’t like TAE reminds me of the “America – love it or leave it” dogma. Not a great way to reach out to fans who are simply providing feedback.

    Terrible, terrible analogy, dude, you really should be feeling a twinge of shame after reading that a second or third time.

    America is a label given to a politically defined landmass which provides citizenship benefits to all persons born within its political borders, levies taxes, provides benefits, and all that jazz.

    TAE is a public access TV show.

    The hurdles to emigrating from the USA are enormous and involve–you guessed it!–social justice issues regarding freedom of movement, economic equality, and more.

    The hurdles to finding a new TV show or podcast relating to atheism are, since you are already on the internet, tiny.

    Is your critical reasoning always this bad or does it just fly out the window when social justice/feminism topics are involved?

    noexitlovenow #50: Sally Strange, Then it becomes the call in and argue about anything hour. This might be interesting for some, but then call it “The Argument Experience” or something like that. Better yet, keep “The Atheist Experience” and argue about god and religion, and start a new program called the “Argument Experience” so that people who want to argue about Libertarianism, Socialism, Feminism, Modern Money Theory, the gold standard, whether Brown Shoes are acceptable, The Loch Ness Monster, Common Core, Obama care, Bernie!, Jeb!, Veganism, Atkins, 911 truth, the labor theory of value, etc can all call in and argue for our amusement.

    Well, if any of those things contribute to “creating a positive atheist culture,” then I don’t see why not. As I already pointed out, 100% pure atheism is a dry and boring topic. In fact, I stopped listening to TAE a couple years ago, after checking out a bunch of shows, precisely because it was primarily about atheism and atheism related issues, and there were other topics that were far more compelling to me. And that’s fine! I never expected TAE to change just for me. Unlike you guys, I lack that sense of entitlement. So I went out and found new shows.*

    Atheism is interesting because atheists are people living in a religious world. Without the context of us being people living in a religious world, the idea of a show like TAE would be utter nonsense.

    I also worry that if you argue anything under the banner of “The Atheist Experience” then Atheism gets associated with whatever the host is arguing – when as we know Atheism is a single answer to a single question. You don’t need to be a liberal, a feminist, or hold any particular opinion about any particular thing other than that to be an Atheist.

    Why worry? You’re talking about an inevitability. Since atheism is a single answer to a single question, it’s inexorable that anytime an atheist gets up and speaks, as an atheist, and says anything besides, “There are no gods,” then people’s perception of atheism as a concept changes. You don’t appear to worry that people associate atheism with church-state separation. You don’t appear to worry that people associate atheism with science education promotion. But you DO appear to worry that people associate atheism with feminism. Again, those double standards!

    You don’t need to be a feminist to be an atheist, but it would be better if you were. It would be better if religious people were feminists. It would be better if agnostic people were feminists. Feminism is the correct position to hold vis-a-vis the position of women in this global culture. Treating the association of atheism with feminism as a “worry” is either nonsensical or explicitly anti-feminist.

    I’m always defending feminism, but it is what it is and it is not Atheism.

    Speaking as a person who has been advocating for feminism for about 20 years now (and not for anybody else), I’d really prefer if you just left feminism alone. Don’t defend it, don’t attack it. Given your lackluster understanding of it, that’s probably the most helpful thing you can do.

    Also, it is frustrating when you tune into “The Atheist Experience” and most of the show has been hijacked by a libertarian or anti-feminist.

    A great deal of organized movement atheism has been hijacked by these same people. Given that fact, it would be ridiculous to expect that these issues never come up on a show that is devoted, not to 100% pure atheism and atheism only, but to “The Atheist Experience,” that is, what it’s like to live life as a human who is an atheist in the world.

    Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Heina’s and that’s the main reason I tuned in this week. I’m about 5 minutes into Jasper’s call and so far I’ve found the episode plenty entertaining and interesting. Maybe I’ll check out some more episodes.

    I think Lawnboy’s summary was funny and apt and applies to more than just this one episode. And StonedRanger’s commentary is spot on. IMO, of course.

    *(As an aside, regarding those other shows: I recommend TWIB Prime to anyone who enjoyed this episode of TAE. TWIB aka “This Week in Blackness.” It’s humor and politics, but religion does come up from time to time, since the founder, Elon James White, is an atheist who’s married to a secular Jew and whose mother is a born again Christian. Both make occasional appearances on the show. They had excellent on-the-ground reporting of the events in Ferguson and the unfolding of the #BlackLivesMatter movement.)

  63. Narf says

    @74 – Mas
    Yeah, the libertarian callers are a bit more obnoxious, since you can’t have a rational argument with the anarcho-capitalist variety.  The more moderate libertarians are another matter, of course.

    But when the extreme guys start with the presupposition that the only good government is one that doesn’t exist, and that private citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons, where can you go from there?

  64. Narf says

    You clearly know absolutely nothing about the situation or my reasons, if you think it’s because Matt has a better grasp of feminism than I do.

    Nope.  That’s why I was speculating wildly.  I should have made a slightly more explicit request for correction/clarification.  Sorry if it wasn’t quite as clearly expressed as I intended it to be.  I’m not used to you guys being around and about on here to ask.

    I wasn’t trying to say that you don’t know as much on the subject, just that Matt likes to go on about it longer.  It seems to be more his issue for ranting than anyone else on the show, possibly even Jen, who should be the most vocal, if you go by the stupid stereotypes … well, and the fact that she’s actually been on Godless Bitches, in more than an engineering capacity.

    The problem is that when you are a recognizable feminist online — as Heina is — you have to swat off these kinds of clueless MRAs non-stop. It is not only tedious but also dehumanizing, much as if you were a homosexual who was forced to have conversations with Westboro Baptists on a regular basis. I’m not saying Matt and Heina aren’t capable of dealing with it. I’m not saying I’m not capable of dealing with it. I am saying that it felt a little rude to me to be wasting the guest’s time with something that she wasn’t necessarily there to discuss, and spend half the show on it.

    Oh.  I missed any clear statement of purpose.  I was a little zoned out at the beginning of the show.  What was she there for again, conference promotion or something along those lines?  I tend to think of the show as more free-flowing, once it’s expressly handed over to dealing with callers.

    I figured she was possibly there to do her thing on a different stage.  Spread to a partially new audience (obviously, there’s going to be some overlap).  What did I miss?

    I like speaking to theists, creationists, conspiracy theorists, whatever, at great length, as long as they are respectful and the conversation is productive. All the hosts do, however, exercise the judgement to end a call when it is going nowhere and the caller is not taking the issue seriously. I have spoken to Charlie Check’m about his homophobic bullshit on many occasions, but I do not let him monopolize half the show on his agenda.

    Hmm, I thought that Jasper only got a bit nuts and disrespectful in the last 5 or 6 minutes.  I dunno, different perceptions of the call, I guess.  At which point would you have cut him off?  I thought that the conversation was productive almost the whole way through, myself.  *shrug*

    Yeah, Charlie is … something else.  He starts in with the crap about 15 seconds into the call, doesn’t he?

    I recall something along the lines of “I’m so much more of an atheist than you guys are!  I’ve taken skepticism to a whole new level!  I’ve realized that gay people are icky!”  Umm, right.  Bye.  *click*

    Hosts have the responsibility to hang up on a call that is not productive; my take is that Heina deserved to have her time respected a little more.

    I agree with this statement.  I just don’t understand how it applies to what I listened to on the show.  I think this is the primary point at which I disagree with you.  I thought almost the whole thing was productive.  I dunno.

    This has nothing to do with me caring less about women’s issues, and fuck you if you think it does. And another fuck you from Lynnea, who is annoyed that you implied she is not a feminist either.

    I wasn’t trying to imply anything like that.  I was just referring to Matt’s desire to rant on the subject, relative to yours.

    I’ve heard a lot more of you than from Matt lately, honestly, thanks to your activities on Non Prophets Radio and Matt’s globetrotting with debates and such.  I know you’re a strong feminist.  You just seem to settle the issue and move on, while Matt is a bit more … dogged about it?  Relentless?  I’m not coming up with the right adjective.

  65. Random Listener says

    @SallyStrange…

    Random Listener #47:
    BTW, your earlier comment about how people should go make their own show if they don’t like TAE reminds me of the “America – love it or leave it” dogma. Not a great way to reach out to fans who are simply providing feedback. – Random Listener

    Terrible, terrible analogy, dude, you really should be feeling a twinge of shame after reading that a second or third time. America is a label given to a politically defined landmass which provides citizenship benefits to all persons born within its political borders, levies taxes, provides benefits, and all that jazz. – Sally Strange

    BTW, don’t call me “dude” and I won’t call you “girl”. You don’t know me or how I self-identify.

    Sally – I was talking about paying members of the ACA (my fault, should have been clearer). IMHO, paying members should have a voice on the content of the show. If members don’t like the content, they should be able to say so, not just be told essentially to “love it or leave it”. That kind of talk makes me not renew my membership. For any non-paying members whose interest is in atheism, the “love it or leave it” attitude is not going to encourage them to become members.

    ps. AEX – Be sure to promote the ACA on the show and tell people how they can join.

  66. ironchops says

    Heina is a beautiful and Matt is smart. Personally I think dudes is ugly. Does that make me sexist?
    Jason – It is nearly impossible to argue/discuss these type of core beliefs with someone if that someone’s mind is not open to conversation. They usually become polarized and shut down.
    Seth – Atheist do not reject god, they simply do not believe in a god because there is no evidence to support the claim that at least one god exist.
    Jasper – You’re kidding rite? It’s simple……EQUAL RIGHTS!!!!!
    Mohamad – Does “a maximally great being” = god? – or – If aliens (beings from another planet somewhere in this universe) landed in a ship (or appeared somehow) should we fall on our faces and worship them? Wouldn’t they seem greater than us? How do we distinguish the difference between a being greater than us vs. the greatest being if we don’t even have a clear/any definition of either?
    In General – I like the show as it is. Atheism all by itself is boring to me. I am also getting tired of listening to the same ole arguments stemming from church dogma. I am much more interested in trying to get along with as many people as possible in an effort to advance my personal practices within society. Hopefully I can grow and teach my children and grandchildren to keep an open mind.

  67. Narf says

    @79 – SallyStrange

    A great deal of organized movement atheism has been hijacked by these same people. Given that fact, it would be ridiculous to expect that these issues never come up on a show that is devoted, not to 100% pure atheism and atheism only, but to “The Atheist Experience,” that is, what it’s like to live life as a human who is an atheist in the world.

    Heh, yeah.  I seem to remember some strange comment, something about “an organization promoting positive atheism and the separation of church and state,” although I don’t remember where I heard it from.  😀  Hell, that positive atheism part alone potentially opens up a whole range of other topics.

    Under atheism, nihilism would be an equally compatible worldview, but the ACA isn’t here to talk about that.

    … As an aside, regarding those other shows: I recommend TWIB Prime to anyone who enjoyed this episode of TAE …

    Heck yeah.  I first discovered the show through The Best of the Left podcast, and I immediately added it and #AfterBlack to My Stations on Stitcher.

  68. Narf says

    @ironchops
    Nope, Brain keeps screwing stuff up … not that I would ever criticize him.  He just never takes my ponderings seriously enough.

  69. Chan Kobun, the Ghost-Who-Waddles says

    Narf @#87: Remember, the title song says “one is a genius, the other’s insane”, but it never specifies which is which.

  70. says

    Heina is a beautiful and Matt is smart. Personally I think dudes is ugly. Does that make me sexist?

    Thinking so doesn’t make you sexist. Saying so, depending on the context, definitely can–particularly if both Heina and Matt are engaged in intellectual activities, and both are smart, and you’re not trying to date/fuck Heina regardless of how attractive you find her. So, in this context, both the caller and you were doing a sexist thing by focusing on Heina’s aesthetic appeal and Matt’s intellectual ability. Note that doing a sexist thing is not the same as being a sexist so please don’t let your emotional response run away with your reason.

    In General – I like the show as it is. Atheism all by itself is boring to me. I am also getting tired of listening to the same ole arguments stemming from church dogma. I am much more interested in trying to get along with as many people as possible in an effort to advance my personal practices within society. Hopefully I can grow and teach my children and grandchildren to keep an open mind.

    Agreed! Atheism all by itself is boring, what is interesting to me about it is the potential for educating people about cognitive errors and the value of having sound epistemological approaches to the world.

    BTW, to Rex at #30, yes, I agree that Heina was using coded language to condescend to Jasper in ways that would be sexist if she were seen as male and Jasper were seen as male. However I think this is a highly appropriate response to a man who is actively denying that sexism is a problem.

  71. Bugmaster says

    @SallyStrange #79:

    Remember, as I’ve been told over and over again when trying to bring my particular concerns as a queer woman to the table of organized/movement atheism: Atheism is strictly the lack of belief in god/gods, nothing more and nothing less.

    I’m not sure what your sexuality or gender (or lack thereof) has to do with the existence of gods (or lack thereof).

    Ok, ok, that was glib. But the thing is, lack of belief in gods does imply a lot of other things. First of all, I would argue that if your atheism is a premise, and not a conclusion, then you’re very different from most atheists: you still have a faith, it just happens to be pointed in the opposite direction from most people’s. But if atheism is a conclusion, then that implies that all of the really important differences between theists and atheists happen at a deeper level. We believe different things not because we just woke up one day and decided to switch faiths, but because we are using radically different methodologies for forming beliefs about the world in the first place.

    From what I’ve seen, most theists — and most people in general, probably — never get exposed to the full atheist experience. I don’t mean just the experience of sleeping in on Sunday instead of going to church, or whatever; but the experience of seeing the world as entirely natural, comprehensible, while at the same time acknowledging that absolute certainty in your model of the world can never be attained. I think that AXP is doing a great job of presenting this viewpoint (at least sometimes, when the hosts don’t get bogged down with Kalaam callers or whatever).

    Unfortunately, using empirical reasoning to understand the world (as opposed to faith) has a dark side too. It doesn’t just make you reject a belief in gods; it also means that all of your moral/ideological positions — on feminism, sexuality, social justice, etc. — also become conclusions rather than axioms. This means that a person’s position on these issues could, conceivably, change. Sure, it’s not very likely — I can’t foresee a situation that would convince me that e.g. gay people are evil any more than I can foresee a situation that will make me believe in Jesus — but still, it’s possible in principle.

    This means that when you focus solely on your conclusions (“there are no gods”, “gay people are just ordinary people”, “women should be paid the same as men for the same job”, etc.), rather on the reasoning that enabled you to reach those conclusions, you are not presenting the full atheist experience. And hey, there’s nothing wrong with that ! But there are plenty of political forums, talk shows, and Internet hashtags where you can argue about such things; there are very few places that promote critical thinking as a methodology, and I’d hate to lose AXP as one of them.

    You perceived “hostility” where there really wasn’t any. That’s probably an artifact of deeply ingrained sexist prejudices, but if I mention that, are you going to think that I’m accusing you of being a he-man woman-hater? Are you capable of interrogating your own biases through a somewhat objective lens? Your comments fit a pattern, and that pattern is a sexist pattern.

    Since we are being uncharitable to each other, I will point out that your comment fits a pattern as well: the pattern of an ideologue who says, “given that I cannot possibly be wrong, everyone who disagrees with me is obviously evil and out to get me”. There’s nothing special about feminism in this regard, there are ideologues on all sides. Christians often fall into the same pattern when they say “atheists reject God because they want to sin without repercussions”; atheists do the same thing when they say “Christians have faith because they’re all theocratic idiots living in a fairy tale”; even shitlords such as, apparently, myself do it too when they say, “feminists do what they do just because they hate men”.

    It’s easy to perceive the pattern and write off your opponent as some sort of a non-sentient packet of evil (or even merely as a well-meaning but indoctrinated zombie). It can also be cathartic to just shout obscenities at him until he goes away. Sometimes, this can even be the most optimal course of action… but, if everyone acted like that all the time, then IMO our world would be the poorer for it.

  72. Esquilax says

    I find it strange that we’ve got so many people here saying “hey, this is the Atheist Experience, stop with all these other things!” because there’s actually two relevant words in the title, and the other is “experience.” This is a talk show, we’re here to see the interactions and opinions of the hosts, and more broadly the show is outreach to theists, so that they can understand the experiences and beliefs of atheists. Though it may just be a single conclusion, atheism does influence one’s thinking in many ways, and so those topics that are influenced are just as much a part of the experiences of the hosts as any other.

    I just find it funny that these guys can be such sticklers for exact wording but then proceed to miss out on fifty percent of the important words in the shows name.

  73. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    Sweet mother of AUGH!
    I’ve been listening to, watching, and otherwise following this show for years now, and this show was the first to make me repeatedly vocalise the frustrated noises of doom. Jasper. Agh! It’s like these guys took a creationist songbook, and replaced every instance of “still a dog!” with “only 5%!” and “but the eye!” with “it’s a compliment!” It’s barely even worth listening to or reading anything they have to say anymore, it’s always the same old half-thought shit, and pointing out the flaws in their studies that still don’t show what they’re claiming rarely has any effect, and it gets boring.

    Anyway, that a very good show. Heina was very interesting, and Matt was quite beautiful… probably (I only listened to the audio).

  74. Random Listener says

    @SallyStrange…

    Random Listener #47:
    BTW, your earlier comment about how people should go make their own show if they don’t like TAE reminds me of the “America – love it or leave it” dogma. Not a great way to reach out to fans who are simply providing feedback. – Random Listener

    Terrible, terrible analogy, dude, you really should be feeling a twinge of shame after reading that a second or third time. America is a label given to a politically defined landmass which provides citizenship benefits to all persons born within its political borders, levies taxes, provides benefits, and all that jazz. – Sally Strange

    BTW, don’t call me “dude” and I won’t call you “girl”. You don’t know me or how I self-identify.

    Sally – I was talking about paying members of the ACA (my fault, should have been clearer). IMHO, paying members should have a voice on the content of the show. If members don’t like the content, they should be able to say so, not just be told essentially to “love it or leave it”. That kind of talk makes me not renew my membership. For any non-paying members whose interest is in atheism, the “love it or leave it” attitude is not going to encourage them to become members.

    ps. AEX – Be sure to promote the ACA on the show and tell people how they can join.

  75. Mas says

    Now that I listened to it:
    Instead of deflecting with the strawman “what, men can’t cry?” the hosts should have explained their positions on shirtgate, a low point in SJWism.
    “I deal with people like you all the time.” With snark instead of reason, it seems. For example: she retreated from the pay gap (admitting she didn’t cite statistics because “I knew somebody would [call me out]”) to parenting roles and tried to play an extra victim card by acting offended that the caller didn’t know her name, then denied doing it. You’re not a regular host!
    Worst episode ever. Basically a rehash of Dear Muslima but, ironically, without the religious element.

  76. Monocle Smile says

    @Mas
    Let the door hit you on the way out. Not really sure any of that crap is worth addressing.

  77. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Mas

    Instead of deflecting with the strawman “what, men can’t cry?” the hosts should have explained their positions on shirtgate, a low point in SJWism.

    Who actually has a position on shirtgate at this point, aside from those freaks who insist that it’s exactly equal to – if not worse than – telling a woman she deserves to be raped for showing skin? I suppose Dr Taylor might, but given how many and what kind of people we’re following in common on twitter, I suspect his opinion is something along the lines of “well that was a difficult learning experience,” rather than, “those terrible feminists, trying to tear down the men of science!”
    It certainly doesn’t seem to have hurt his career – he’s still working on the Rosetta/Philae, and he’s appeared a few times on TV since, being particularly interesting and impressive. I for one am happy to see that – he’s a fine scientist, seems like a decent guy, and I’m a fan. Doesn’t mean his comments and choice of dress on an internationally broadcast announcement of a scientific event that people around the world (including children and young adults, particularly women and girls, many of whom would have been interested in pursuing higher education in the sciences (particularly physics) in the hopes of becoming scientists (particularly physicists) at the end of it) were watching were appropriate, though.
    As for crying… I’d cry too if I thought I’d done something that, when counted among other thoughtless statements from scientists and general social attitudes, could dissuade people from pursuing a scientific career. I’m a very emotional person anyway, so maybe that doesn’t really say much, but it means a lot to me that the scientific community gets every mind that demonstrates the passion and capability needed to excel in it, so the thought of putting even one person off it is, frankly, heartbreaking to me.

    For example: she retreated from the pay gap (admitting she didn’t cite statistics because “I knew somebody would [call me out]”) to parenting roles

    Because there are several stats you can use, each refers to different things, and each one can be dismissed as a wicked distortion of the facts by people who do not understand – and seem to have no interest in understanding – that sometimes there are many factors at play. If you look at all working people, you’ll get one number. If you look at all working aged people, you’ll get another. If you look specifically at one particular age group in work, you’ll get yet another. If you compare strictly equivalent groups (same age, same job, same employment period, etc) you’ll get another number still. Each number says something, many say some of the same things, but they all say this – women earn less than men.
    People like Jasper will look at the fact that there isn’t one hard, immutable data point to throw out there, and take it as evidence that the whole thing is mythological or exaggerated. Because a thing being complicated, and having a variety of complicated and interrelated causative factors makes it a myth, apparently.
    …I wonder if they feel the same way about the boiling point of water? (Because that’s variable, based on pressure, salinity, etc.)
    Parenting roles are one of those complicated and interrelated causative factors – it’s not reasonable to expect someone who has to take care of a child to work late into the evening: In most of western society, it’s predominantly (but not exclusively) women who take on the primary childcare role, meaning that in most cases, if a woman has one or more children, they’re unlikely to be able to work longer hours. Maybe you’re thinking that this simply makes it a woman’s choice, and therefore not really an issue but, firstly, social pressures on these issues actually count for something – hence their being called social pressures, rather than social freedoms – and, though it’s changing, society tends to consider men who take on childcare roles to be weak, and women with children who choose to pursue their careers as selfish which, while it doesn’t make the decision for parents, certainly influence them. Secondly, it’s actually possible for employers to engage in employment practices that don’t penalise workers for needing to take care of their kids – flexible hours and the ability to work from home some of the time being examples that could help to make up on working hours.

    tried to play an extra victim card by acting offended that the caller didn’t know her name, then denied doing it. You’re not a regular host!

    …..Victim card? How does it follow from taking offence that someone didn’t know her name that was, for a very large proportion of the show, right beneath her on the screen, to her claiming to be victimised? That makes no sense.
    Anyway, regular host or not, her name is pretty clearly visible throughout the video, and even through that call, as well as having been mentioned in the audio. It’s not like there are so many names to remember on the show that you would expect him to have forgotten it.

  78. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    ^There should be a mission in that previous comment. Just stick one in at random when you’re reading, if you read it.

  79. soren says

    @MAS
    Well shirtgate was quite simple – the guy fucked up – he apologised. People accepted his apology.

  80. Jasper says

    Hey I was Jasper who called into the show.

    First off Matt was completely right on the hypocrisy thing, I was obviously stupid for stating it that way, I should have instead asked his perspective, however if you watch it again you will notice I barely have a chance to get a question in. I had to talk very quickly and use limited words they both individually talked for far longer than I did.

    When it comes to the point that I shouldn’t have discussed social justice issues I have a big problem, The Atheist Experience was directly connected with Atheism+ and is intertwined with Free Thought Blogs to the point where you host the video here. Moreover I identified before I called that I was going to talk about social justice, don’t take the call and then accuse me of going off topic.

    I am willing to have a discussion and I am considering making a video to address the claims made in the video however right now ill just address Heina’s claims that women get far more harassment online. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/pi_2014-10-22__online-harassment-03/
    The results of a pew research study finds that men infact receive more harassment and more threats, Heina was brazenly lying and misrepresenting reality.

    She is in the business of seeing sexism everywhere, whether its a offhand complement or simply being referred to as a guest (which I did because I didn’t know her name and wasn’t going to waste my limited speaking time asking it). Also I would say that when it comes to her not being called smart because she is a women that is just bullshit, Tracy is called smart all the time because she makes good points and because frankly, she is smart.

    Matt if you’re reading this I would like to ask you something and really anyone reading this can have a go aswell.
    If Social Justice is such a force for good then please give me a specific achievement that Social Justice Warriors have accomplished.

    Now I want to respond to Russell’s comments

    Russell Glasser
    “Hey, here’s a great idea! If you want a different show in which your atheism is undiluted by feminism or social justice — try creating that show! Because The Atheist Experience is not the one you’re looking for.”
    Thankyou for proving my point.

    “— as Heina is — you have to swat off these kinds of clueless MRAs non-stop. It is not only tedious but also dehumanizing, much as if you were a homosexual who was forced to have conversations with Westboro Baptists on a regular basis. I’m not saying Matt and Heina aren’t capable of dealing with it. I’m not saying I’m not capable of dealing with it. I am saying that it felt a little rude to me to be wasting the guest’s time with something that she wasn’t necessarily there to discuss, and spend half the show on it.”

    How was I clueless? could you please give an example of where im wrong? if anything Heina is the clueless one for lying and claiming that “women are the most bullied on the internet”.

    I am not an MRA though, do you think anyone who disagrees with feminism is an MRA?

    And then comparing me to a Westboro Baptist, just brilliant.

  81. corwyn says

    @96:

    No , they just don’t have your definition of ‘experience’. If I had a show The Circus Experience, you would honestly expect conversations about politics? Not everyone would.

  82. kkehno says

    People who argue that because white cis-men and white cis-women have same pay and therefore there is no problem and feminism is killed seem to forget that there are people of color and transgender folk whom too should have equal pay and opportunity too.

  83. says

    Bugmaster #95: I’m not sure what your sexuality or gender (or lack thereof) has to do with the existence of gods (or lack thereof).
    Ok, ok, that was glib.

    Don’t do that. I mean, are you TRYING to provoke a hostile response, to justify your previously erroneous detection of hostility?

    But the thing is, lack of belief in gods does imply a lot of other things.

    That’s what I was saying when people “corrected” me by saying that atheism is just the lack of belief in gods, nothing more and nothing less. I was repeating back reasoning that was given to me for why I should not be asking atheist organizations to consider how their organizing/outreach efforts might impact people who aren’t cis straight white men differently. I wasn’t saying “atheism is the lack of belief in gods, nothing more and nothing less” because I personally believe it. I really thought that the rest of what I said made it clear that I think that is a trivially true, but extremely limited view to take of atheism.

    First of all, I would argue that if your atheism is a premise, and not a conclusion, then you’re very different from most atheists: you still have a faith, it just happens to be pointed in the opposite direction from most people’s. But if atheism is a conclusion, then that implies that all of the really important differences between theists and atheists happen at a deeper level. We believe different things not because we just woke up one day and decided to switch faiths, but because we are using radically different methodologies for forming beliefs about the world in the first place.
    From what I’ve seen, most theists — and most people in general, probably — never get exposed to the full atheist experience. I don’t mean just the experience of sleeping in on Sunday instead of going to church, or whatever; but the experience of seeing the world as entirely natural, comprehensible, while at the same time acknowledging that absolute certainty in your model of the world can never be attained. I think that AXP is doing a great job of presenting this viewpoint (at least sometimes, when the hosts don’t get bogged down with Kalaam callers or whatever).

    Agreed.

    Unfortunately, using empirical reasoning to understand the world (as opposed to faith) has a dark side too. It doesn’t just make you reject a belief in gods; it also means that all of your moral/ideological positions — on feminism, sexuality, social justice, etc. — also become conclusions rather than axioms. This means that a person’s position on these issues could, conceivably, change. Sure, it’s not very likely — I can’t foresee a situation that would convince me that e.g. gay people are evil any more than I can foresee a situation that will make me believe in Jesus — but still, it’s possible in principle.

    In practice, this sort of rigorous investigation of one’s beliefs tends to lead towards feminism and social justice, not away–so long as one includes empathy for other humans in the mix and doesn’t make the grade school error of mistaking emotion for lack of reason.

    This means that when you focus solely on your conclusions (“there are no gods”, “gay people are just ordinary people”, “women should be paid the same as men for the same job”, etc.), rather on the reasoning that enabled you to reach those conclusions, you are not presenting the full atheist experience.

    Who? Who is doing this? Not me. Not Heina.

    And hey, there’s nothing wrong with that ! But there are plenty of political forums, talk shows, and Internet hashtags where you can argue about such things; there are very few places that promote critical thinking as a methodology, and I’d hate to lose AXP as one of them.

    I don’t see how pointing out how the same practice of critical thinking and rigorous investigation of premises/logic etc. leads to various conclusions, including atheism, means you lose TAE as a source for promoting critical thinking. Again, this is simply double standards at play. Critical thinking etc. leads to conclusions about ethics independently of how critical thinking leads to conclusions about the existence or non-existence of gods, yet “ethics” broadly writ is not seen by you as a topic that takes away from either critical thinking or atheism, but somehow “feminism” (which is technically a subset of ethics involving the specific ethical treatment of people based on gender) is seen that way.

    You perceived “hostility” where there really wasn’t any. That’s probably an artifact of deeply ingrained sexist prejudices, but if I mention that, are you going to think that I’m accusing you of being a he-man woman-hater? Are you capable of interrogating your own biases through a somewhat objective lens? Your comments fit a pattern, and that pattern is a sexist pattern.

    Since we are being uncharitable to each other,

    Actually I was being very charitable, but you missed it.

    I will point out that your comment fits a pattern as well: the pattern of an ideologue who says, “given that I cannot possibly be wrong, everyone who disagrees with me is obviously evil and out to get me”.

    I went out of my way to specify that I was NOT accusing you of being “evil” or a “he-man woman-hater,” but rather noting that my observation that your actions fit a certain pattern might lead you to erroneously conclude that I was accusing you of being evil, and warning you away from that error.

    There’s nothing special about feminism in this regard, there are ideologues on all sides. Christians often fall into the same pattern when they say “atheists reject God because they want to sin without repercussions”; atheists do the same thing when they say “Christians have faith because they’re all theocratic idiots living in a fairy tale”; even shitlords such as, apparently, myself do it too when they say, “feminists do what they do just because they hate men”.
    It’s easy to perceive the pattern and write off your opponent as some sort of a non-sentient packet of evil (or even merely as a well-meaning but indoctrinated zombie). It can also be cathartic to just shout obscenities at him until he goes away. Sometimes, this can even be the most optimal course of action… but, if everyone acted like that all the time, then IMO our world would be the poorer for it.

    I didn’t write you off though. Better luck next time with your pattern detection.

  84. =8)-DX says

    Heh, comments section here is precious. To do another paraphrase similar to @LawnBoy’s:

    Caller: Hey I want to talk about feminism and how it sucks on your atheist show!
    Heina: OK, let me explain to you how it’s relevant to being a female-presenting atheist activist online…
    Caller: I don’t want to understand because it’s totally stupid and you’re poopyheads!
    Commenters on blog: Why were you talking about feminisms instead of atheisms!

    Because the caller asked, dummies! Atheist Experience callers have been annoyingly trollish, ignorant and antagonistic on a whole number of topics over the years (to much hilarity), and Heina and Matt actually gave surprisingly calm, rational and well-thought-out responses. What more could you want?

    Also, I strongly disagree with that early caller: Heina is also smart and Matt is also beautiful (especially remember that pink beard he had – very snazzy!)

  85. ironchops says

    @ SallyStrange #91:
    “Note that doing a sexist thing is not the same as being a sexist so please don’t let your emotional response run away with your reason”
    Point well taken. I don’t see myself as sexist or racist for that matter but I do find myself saying and doing sexist and racist thing much to my own chagrin. I don’t like that about myself but it happens. I need to keep working on that.
    I like your comments. You seem to be a straight shooter and kind. I like this better than the belligerent comments so commonly found in these threads.
    @ =8)-DX says #107:
    “Also, I strongly disagree with that early caller: Heina is also smart and Matt is also beautiful (especially remember that pink beard he had – very snazzy!)”
    I am not used to commenting on men looks very much, Yea…that pink beard! LOL. I can see the beauty though so I will have to agree.

  86. says

    ironschops #108: “Note that doing a sexist thing is not the same as being a sexist so please don’t let your emotional response run away with your reason”
    Point well taken. I don’t see myself as sexist or racist for that matter but I do find myself saying and doing sexist and racist thing much to my own chagrin. I don’t like that about myself but it happens. I need to keep working on that.
    I like your comments. You seem to be a straight shooter and kind. I like this better than the belligerent comments so commonly found in these threads.

    Thanks! I appreciate it. This is the exact thing that I was trying to communicate to Bugmaster, and unfortunately they seem to have reversed my point 180 degrees. I don’t see myself as a racist. But I am white, and because I have been close friends with/dating various Black people over the years, I have learned that my brain produces racist thoughts without me wanting it to. It’s just a question of noticing, paying attention, and taking appropriate action. (Usually the appropriate action is simply keeping my mouth shut and keeping those racist thoughts to myself.) This is why, to me, the question “Is X a horrible sexist?” is irrelevant; I cannot read X’s mind, but I can say with some certainty whether some of X’s statements were sexist or at least reproduced sexist attitudes. Credit for this concept is due to Jay Smooth’s (in)famous “How To Tell People They Sound Racist” video, well worth looking up on Youtube if you’re not already familiar. Racism and sexism (and other bigotries) are so insidious and damaging precisely because they infect our minds without our conscious knowledge and don’t require our conscious intent to produce sexist/racist/whatever outcomes.

    I would warn against dismissing the “belligerent” responses overmuch though; again, there are double standards at play of which you may not even be aware. Women’s anger makes more of an impression on everyone, including women, than men’s anger does, because we are ALL socialized to expect anger from men and kindness from women. Sometimes I am extremely belligerent, but that doesn’t mean that my observations and conclusions are any less valid. It just means that I’ve chosen to add another dimension of communication–emotional content–to the observations and conclusions I’m trying to get across.

  87. Gnostic says

    Heina was an excellent guest host, it would be great if she came on more regularly. This is the first time I’ve seen an ex-Muslim on the show, and it’s nice to have the variety. Also being articulate on a range of issues is a bonus, but it would have been great to hear more about the ex-Muslim experience and perspective.

    Speaking of a range of issues, I was impressed with how calm and reasonable Matt and Heina were with Jasper. I would have hung up on him and ranted about his flavor of stupid within the first 5 minutes of his call. Which is not to say that’s what they should have done. I do have an idea on show content, though: maybe the hosts should choose who they indulge and for how long! Pretty radical, but I’ll just leave that out there.

    As for Mohamad’s question, I think he was asking how to counter that argument, rather than putting it forward as something he personally believed, no? If so, the way I might suggest responding to something based on an appeal to “anything is possible” is to ask if it is possible for something to be impossible. Chewing on that koan for a while might help some people understand the problem.

  88. says

    Random Listener #98: BTW, don’t call me “dude” and I won’t call you “girl”. You don’t know me or how I self-identify.

    Well, I’m reasonably certain that you’re not a child, and I didn’t address you as such, so, apologies for (maybe) misgendering you, but those terms really aren’t equivalent. If you don’t want to be addressed as “dude,” just say so: no need to invoke the power to use demeaning sexist language against me.

    Sally – I was talking about paying members of the ACA (my fault, should have been clearer). IMHO, paying members should have a voice on the content of the show. If members don’t like the content, they should be able to say so, not just be told essentially to “love it or leave it”. That kind of talk makes me not renew my membership. For any non-paying members whos

    It’s still a really terrible analogy. Actually, yes, the producers of the show DO have the right to say, “take it or leave it” in response to your criticism, at which point you can decide to stop your subscription or not. Nobody is contesting your right to have opinions about the show’s content and to communicate those opinions to the show’s producers. Saying “love it or leave it” in regards to a TV show is simply NOT equivalent to saying “love it or leave it” with regards to a nation-state in a world where nation-states, citizenship, and wealth all determine far too much of a person’s opportunity to live their life to its highest potential. The latter is insensitive and possibly cruel; the former is merely sensible and possibly irritating if the complainer feels strongly about it.

  89. Narf says

    @106 – corwyn

    No , they just don’t have your definition of ‘experience’. If I had a show The Circus Experience, you would honestly expect conversations about politics? Not everyone would.

    If one of the two viable political parties in the US was trying to keep clowns out of politics and take away their rights, and that party was also trying to put lion tamers in prison for working with lions, then yes, I would expect The Circus Experience to start discussing politics on their show.

    I don’t see how it’s so hard to connect the dots here.  It isn’t even a matter of how many leaps you have to make to get from atheism to feminism.  It’s a straight line.

    Who’s trying to shove their religious nonsense into science classrooms and hurt our society with that sort of ignorance?  The religious extremists who have taken over the Republican party.  So, public education is explicitly on the table in any discussion about atheism.

    Who’s doing the most to oppose feminism, after Thunderf00t?  The religious extremists who have taken over the Republican party, who are trying to take away women’s rights and reimplement/reinforce antiquated, sexist gender-norms.  We’re the reactionary side in this, as with pretty much everything else.

    We didn’t choose this issue.  The religious right did, and many of us have moved to oppose them.

    So, almost any social issue in the political sphere is on the table, since the religious right has their fingers in almost everything socio-political.  If you want to argue about whether or not you think they let the call continue past the point at which it was productive, then fine.  Trying to completely remove the issue from the table on a show about atheism (and therefore religious activity in our society) is just unreasonable, though.

  90. Narf says

    @105 – Jasper

    I am willing to have a discussion and I am considering making a video to address the claims made in the video however right now ill just address Heina’s claims that women get far more harassment online. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/pi_2014-10-22__online-harassment-03/
    The results of a pew research study finds that men infact receive more harassment and more threats, Heina was brazenly lying and misrepresenting reality.

    You’re cherry-picking like mad, man.  Were you able to find any other graphs in that group that supported your proposition?

    I prefer this one, from the same survey: Young women experience particularly severe forms of online harassment.

  91. Narf says

    @114 – SallyStrange

    * not “ironschops,” that should be “ironchops.” Oops.

    You accidentally used his German name?

  92. Narf says

    @105 – Jasper (again)
    Or how about this one?

    How welcoming are online “neighborhoods” to men and women?

    Video Games:
    More welcoming toward men – 44
    More welcoming toward women – 3
    More welcoming toward both – 51

    And the Pew poll is self-reporting, on top of that.  Heina was talking about studies that took various, controlled statements, went into online games, and said those statements many times in different games, with obviously-male voices and obviously-female voices, then sorted and judged the responses.  Those sorts of studies are far more meaningful than opinion polls, and always skew towards far more abuse directed at women.

  93. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Jasper

    If Social Justice is such a force for good then please give me a specific achievement that Social Justice Warriors have accomplished.

    What’ve the Romans ever done for us, eh?
    Well, I suppose it depends how you’re defining Social Justice and Social Justice Warios. Are you asking about the history of movements for the promotion of justice in society? Or are you asking specifically about current generations in the last few years?

    If you’re asking the broader question, you’ve got things like votes for women, votes for people in general who aren’t related to royalty (votes at all, for that matter), the abolition of slavery, the end of apartheid, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the minimum wage, the weekend… I could go on for quite a while and still not be scratching the surface.
    If you’re being more specific and restrictive, then it’s a smaller list, obviously, but you’ve still got the legalisation of gay marriage, the end of the idea in mainstream psychology that being transgender is a mental illness, the increasing recognition among the public of the value and philosophical soundness of atheism, and the importance of diversity in politics and media, etc… other than all of that, of course, nuthin’!

  94. corwyn says

    @115 Narf:

    You missed my point. I wasn’t arguing the whole atheism – feminism thing. I was noting that adding the word ‘experience’ to the title doesn’t make it obvious that an atheism show will be talking about feminism, as was being claimed. Sorry for the confusion.

  95. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    If Social Justice is such a force for good then please give me a specific achievement that Social Justice Warriors have accomplished.

    Giving women the right to vote. Giving blacks the right to vote. Overturning sodomy laws. Getting gay marriage legalized. Getting more access to the day-after pill and other forms of contraception. Getting more access to abortion.

    How can you use “social justice warrior” as a negative? Do you fight for social justice? Then you are a social justice warrior. It’s like you come from 4chan and reddit where they use “social justice warrior” and “white knight” as negatives. How fucked up do you have to be to use those as negatives? It’s very likely that you’re steeped in particular online (and perhaps offline) cultures where the misogyny is so ingrained and taken for granted that it’s hard for you to even notice it. Next time someone makes a reference a slut, or bitch, or whore, or otherwise demeans women, try to imagine the same comment directed at blacks, or Latinos, or people in wheelchairs. And don’t give me “it’s just a joke”, because it’s not most of the time in places like 4chan, reddit, online gaming, etc. If you seriously use terms like “alpha”, “beta”, and “cuckold” in everyday conversation, then you are part of the problem.

  96. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @corwyn

    I was noting that adding the word ‘experience’ to the title doesn’t make it obvious that an atheism show will be talking about feminism

    No, but it does make it obvious that atheists will be talking about their experiences.

  97. Bugmaster says

    (I’m skimming backwards through the comments, sorry if I missed anyone)
    @Athywren #119:
    I may agree or disagree with you, depending on how you define the term “SJW”.

    I have nothing but respect for the people who risked their freedom (and often their very lives !) to bring women and minorities the right to vote; the right to reproductive freedom and sexual expression; marriage equality, etc. I don’t know if I’d call them “Warriors” (since, by and large, they never shot anyone), but these are the heroes who fought for social justice, no question.

    On the other hand, I have very little respect for people who complain on Tumblr about dick jokes, air conditioning, sexy billboards, and other stuff like that. The pejorative definition of the term “SJW” refers to these people, so if you are using the term in this sense, then no, I don’t think they are accomplishing anything productive… But I don’t really think they deserve much attention, one way or another.

    Unfortunately, there’s another faction of the modern social justice movement who are, perhaps, a little closer to PETA in their outlook. They are using tactics such as d0xxing, bomb threats, and online mobs to silence people whom they dislike. These are the guys who will actually get you fired for making a dick joke in private. I think they deserve the label “Warrior” more than the other two, and I would argue that their accomplishments so far have been entirely negative.

  98. Bugmaster says

    @SallyStrange/ironchops #111:

    I don’t see myself as a racist. But I am white, and because I have been close friends with/dating various Black people over the years, I have learned that my brain produces racist thoughts without me wanting it to.

    Well, sure, of course. We all have mental biases, related to gender, sexuality, race, or even political ideology. When you see another person exhibiting a bias, of course you should point it out; similarly, when someone points out your own bias, it makes sense to re-examine your own thoughts.

    However, just because someone says, “you are biased”, doesn’t automatically make them right. Christians say this all the time — “you are an atheist just because you hate God” — and it never works. So, it’s not enough to say, for example, “you are wrong because your thoughts are sexist”. You need to include some sort of reasoning or evidence that will demonstrate that the specific thing a person said is, in fact, incorrect. For example, you might say, “you claimed that women are less capable at math than men, but according to the recent SAT scores, they lead men by 5 points nationwide” (disclaimer: this number is probably not accurate, you should research it yourself). At this point, your opponent can examine his thoughts and say, “Ok, why is it that I believe that women are less suited for math, when the evidence against this position is overwhelming ? Maybe I am sexist after all”.

  99. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    These are the guys who will actually get you fired for making a dick joke in private.

    [citation needed]

    On the other hand, I have very little respect for people who complain on Tumblr about dick jokes, air conditioning, sexy billboards, and other stuff like that. The pejorative definition of the term “SJW” refers to these people

    No it doesn’t. It references an exaggerated, and context-stripped version of those people. It refers to anyone who is vocal about the fact that we’re not living in a post-prejudice utopia yet. There’s an important difference between referencing and referring.
    Please bear in mind, if you want to argue this point, that you’re addressing someone who has not encountered the term for the first time today, but is quite familiar with its usage.

  100. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    (That last was @bugmaster. Apparently I forgot to add that before posting.)

  101. Bugmaster says

    @SallyStrange #108:

    In practice, this sort of rigorous investigation of one’s beliefs tends to lead towards feminism and social justice, not away–so long as one includes empathy for other humans in the mix and doesn’t make the grade school error of mistaking emotion for lack of reason.

    Agreed, but again, there’s a dark side to this. Since your feminism and social justice positions now become conclusions, rather than premises; and since no one is infallible; this means that any of those conclusions could be wrong. It also means that you can no longer use emotions alone (or even emotions plus your personal life experience) to guide your actions (I’m talking about long-term decisions here, not spot judgements such as “omg there’s a tiger in this bush, RUN”, since emotions are much more suited for those). This means that you need to leave the door open at least a little bit for people who want to persuade you to change your mind… even those people whom, on a purely emotional level, you find distasteful. Of course, “leaving the door open” is not the same thing as “believing what they say”, or I’d be a Christian right now (or possibly some form of Singularitarian).

    I didn’t write you off though. Better luck next time with your pattern detection.

    Neither did I — or else I wouldn’t be talking to you at all 🙂

  102. Narf says

    @120 – corwyn
    Well, yeah, yours wasn’t that bad.  I just used it as a reference point.  My comment was addressed to a bunch of different people.  Yours was the most amusing to pull, because the idea of The Circus Experience show’s political coverage was amusing as hell.  “Today on The Circus Experience: white-wash and trousers … how the hanging belt buckle changed the Florida elections.”

    I agree that it isn’t explicit from those words alone, if that’s all you’re going on.  ‘Experience’ is a little vague, but that’s probably what they were going for, back in the day.  “This is the sort of stuff we experience in the religiously-saturated state of Texas, so call in and ask us anything.”  I don’t think they had much in the way of an established agenda, beyond using the public access station for outreach and education.

  103. says

    They are using tactics such as d0xxing, bomb threats, and online mobs to silence people whom they dislike.

    Funny how when I read this I immediately think of anti-feminists. 😀

  104. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Bugmaster

    Since your feminism and social justice positions now become conclusions, rather than premises; and since no one is infallible; this means that any of those conclusions could be wrong. It also means that you can no longer use emotions alone (or even emotions plus your personal life experience) to guide your actions (I’m talking about long-term decisions here, not spot judgements such as “omg there’s a tiger in this bush, RUN”, since emotions are much more suited for those). This means that you need to leave the door open at least a little bit for people who want to persuade you to change your mind… even those people whom, on a purely emotional level, you find distasteful. Of course, “leaving the door open” is not the same thing as “believing what they say”, or I’d be a Christian right now (or possibly some form of Singularitarian).

    Congratulations. You’ve just invented skepticism.

  105. Narf says

    @121 – EL

    If you seriously use terms like “alpha”, “beta”, and “cuckold” in everyday conversation, then you are part of the problem.

    Unless you just specifically have a thing for watching other guys have sex with your wife.  If that’s your thing, and your wife is cool with it, then hey, whatever gets your rocks off.

  106. Bugmaster says

    @Athywren #125:

    [citation needed]

    Oh, I thought this was obvious, but here you go:
    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/donglegate-adria-richards
    https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/

    Please bear in mind, if you want to argue this point, that you’re addressing someone who has not encountered the term for the first time today, but is quite familiar with its usage.

    I am in fact such a person, and I’ve seen the term “SJW” used in both the complimentary and the pejorative senses. I understand that you may prefer one usage over the other, but that’s a different issue.

    Since there exist large communities of people who use the term in radically different ways, it makes sense to establish which meaning of the word you personally employ before engaging in conversation on the topic.

    That said, my discussion of the “-Warrior” component of “Social Justice Warrior”, and its application to the various social justice factions, is just my own opinion.

  107. Bugmaster says

    @Athywren #130:

    Congratulations. You’ve just invented skepticism.

    I didn’t invent it, I just think we should use it more often 🙂

  108. Bugmaster says

    @Jundurg #129:

    Funny how when I read this I immediately think of anti-feminists

    Oh yeah, absolutely, there are assholes on all sides of every issue. I mean, just look at PETA…

  109. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Bugmaster

    Oh, I thought this was obvious, but here you go:
    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/donglegate-adria-richards
    https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/

    It was obvious, but I didn’t want to dismiss you out of hand. So, what you actually meant to say was that, “these are the guys who will not get you fired for making dick jokes and sexual remarks about women at public conferences”?

    I am in fact such a person, and I’ve seen the term “SJW” used in both the complimentary and the pejorative senses. I understand that you may prefer one usage over the other, but that’s a different issue.

    I personally don’t prefer any usage. I’m just aware of the ways in which it is used, and don’t see much point, at least in this particular case, of taking actual or claimed alternate definitions that are not commonly used into account.

  110. Narf says

    @119 – Athywren – Frustration Familiarity Panda
    Oh, and hey, did you notice that the specific graph that Jasper linked is labelled “Men and women experience different varieties of online harassment,” saying nothing about what he claims it indicates?  And the two other graphs that I pulled from the exact same poll show the exact opposite situation from his claim, to a significant degree?

    And he has the balls to accuse Heina of “brazenly lying and misrepresenting reality.”  It doesn’t get any more brazen than the shit he just pulled.

  111. corwyn says

    @122:

    No, but it does make it obvious that atheists will be talking about their experiences.

    At the supermarket? In bed? Underwater?

    The claim was made that ‘experience’ added *specific* items to the agenda. If it adds *everything* to the agenda, then the ‘atheist’ doesn’t narrow the topic much.

  112. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Narf

    Oh, and hey, did you notice that the specific graph that Jasper linked is labelled “Men and women experience different varieties of online harassment,” saying nothing about what he claims it indicates? And the two other graphs that I pulled from the exact same poll show the exact opposite situation from his claim, to a significant degree?

    Yeah, kind of reminds me of a guy I was briefly “friends” with on the Steam chat/forum thing. He would, about fifteen seconds into any discussion, alert me to the fact that I had stumbled upon one of his “trap cards” and then proceed to “educate” me with links to charts and graphs without context that he apparently thought should definitely have swayed me to his point of view. (I should quickly rush to Jasper’s defence here and state that it’s only the approach that’s reminiscent, not the attitudes… not that I have specified or will specify the attitudes, but they were so astonishingly bad that I want to be very clear that I’m not accusing him of sharing them.)

    Normally, I would’ve addressed that as well, but I’m basically just running on snark at the moment. Well, snark and pizza.

  113. Narf says

    @Athywren
    I’m guessing that the Steam guy’s attitudes involved 9/11, trickle-down economics, and lizard people?

    Mmmmmm, pizza.

  114. says

    Unfortunately, there’s another faction of the modern social justice movement who are, perhaps, a little closer to PETA in their outlook. They are using tactics such as d0xxing, bomb threats, and online mobs to silence people whom they dislike.

    Uh, I’m confused now. Are we talking about “SJWs” or Gamergate? Is he saying 8Chan and KotakuInAction are a “faction of the modern social justice movement”?

  115. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Bugmaster

    On the other hand, I have very little respect for people who complain on Tumblr about dick jokes, air conditioning, sexy billboards, and other stuff like that. The pejorative definition of the term “SJW” refers to these people, so if you are using the term in this sense, then no, I don’t think they are accomplishing anything productive… But I don’t really think they deserve much attention, one way or another.

    I think they’re accomplishing very valuable goals. Just for a start, their work allows me to identify you as a person who is defending the status quo and is part of the problem – unabashedly so.

    How did you think that previous generations got women the right to vote, etc.? It wasn’t by being nice and letting white males keep their social status and social privilege. They did so by challenging the social paradigms and hierarchies, and attacking justice with words where they saw it.

    You need to read some Martin Luther King Jr., specifically his letter from a birmingham jail.
    https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

    I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

    Now, replace “white moderate” with “pro-sex equality moderate”. That’s what you’re doing right now. That’s who you are.

    You might think that a dick joke isn’t a big deal. That’s your perogative. Some women (and some men, and other people) sometimes feel that they are, and they are free to express their displeasure. For example, remember that the totality of the start of elevatorgate was one woman saying “that’s creepy – don’t do that”, and then it exploded out of control because of privileged young men exploding at the thought that women do not exist to serve their sexual needs. It was a mild suggestion / criticism, with an insane amount of blowback from anti-feminists in the form of harassment, death threats, etc.

    Regarding the dongle joke – all that happened was she reported the inappropriate behavior to an organizer. She didn’t want the guy who made the dongle joke to be fired, merely repremanded. Offhand, that might have been a little too much punishment. However, that is grossly inappropriate behavior, and you better expect some serious consequences if you make crude sexual jokes about a colleague when on the job. Professionalism is an important trait, and that’s sexual harassment. — Still, in this circumstance we see very similar behavior. A mild form of criticism by reporting the behavior to the event organizers, and an insane amount of blowback from anti-feminists.

    Unfortunately, there’s another faction of the modern social justice movement who are, perhaps, a little closer to PETA in their outlook. They are using tactics such as d0xxing, bomb threats, and online mobs to silence people whom they dislike. These are the guys who will actually get you fired for making a dick joke in private. I think they deserve the label “Warrior” more than the other two, and I would argue that their accomplishments so far have been entirely negative.

    I have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. That is the tactics of anti-feminist shitholes like 4chan and anti-feminist celebrities like Thunderfoot. You need to do your research. You have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re blatantly lying.

    It also means that you can no longer use emotions alone (or even emotions plus your personal life experience) to guide your actions (I’m talking about long-term decisions here, not spot judgements such as “omg there’s a tiger in this bush, RUN”,

    What the fuck are you talking about? No really – I cannot parse that. What are you trying to say? — PS: “Think before you speak” is generally a pretty standard thing to do for reasonable adult human beings.

    This means that you need to leave the door open at least a little bit for people who want to persuade you to change your mind… even those people whom, on a purely emotional level, you find distasteful.

    And what do you think we’re doing now? Talking about sports or the weather? You’re getting dangerously close to “freeze peach” and hyper-skepticism.

  116. Monocle Smile says

    @Martin
    C’mon son. When has anything stopped the “muh muh SJW” crowd from making shit up out of whole cloth?

    @EL
    Agreed on all points. Well said. I remember hearing about “elevatorgate” and then digging to try to find what started it all. I thought it was a joke when I saw Watson’s video. I mean, the insane backlash really couldn’t be caused just by that, could it? That was my first real introduction to the anti-SJW crowd.
    The incoherent screaming about Anita Sarkeesian is in the same category. She’s a video game reporter who says some things. And she won a gaming award that some people think she didn’t deserve. So what? Why is this worthy of lighting the internet on fire? I guess I just fundamentally cannot empathize.

  117. Narf says

    @MS

    C’mon son. When has anything stopped the “muh muh SJW” crowd from making shit up out of whole cloth?

    Heh, when did you turn redneck on us, man? 😛

  118. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Post 141. Typos. Typos everywhere.
    “Justice” instead of “injustice”.
    “pretend standard” instead of “pretty standard”.

  119. Narf says

    @EL
    Heh heh heh heh heh.  I dunno, man.  I kind of prefer pretend standard.  😀

    Gotta love those sorts of typos.  My brain says one word, and my fingers type another word that’s 8 or 9 characters long and only shares the first two letters with the intended word, but is correctly spelled and everything.  Funny how even language and typing can get shifted down into what seems to be almost on the level of an autonomic function.

  120. says

    I mean, I am well aware that liberals and progressives can be pretentious, egomaniacal, oversensitive assholes too. In fact I’d bet I’ve been on the receiving end of their petulance a lot more than the anti-SJWs who endlessly whinge and project about them. But if you’re going to make a claim about “factions of the modern social justice movement,” be ready to back that shit up. I suspect the default response here will be “Atheism+! Atheism+!” But Jesus, that never graduated into a movement or even a faction of one. And its adherents certainly never ganged up on social media to terrorize or threaten the lives of anyone. It was an idea Jen McCreight had, that some other generally left-wing people agreed with. Richard Carrier made some “with us or against us” remarks in a blog post that those already inclined towards extreme paranoia interpreted as the announcement of no less than a full-fledged pogrom. And it was Jen McCreight who was driven right out of blogging and having an online presence altogether by the hysterical rage and abuse of the anti-A+ers, not the other way round.

  121. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I mean, I am well aware that liberals and progressives can be pretentious, egomaniacal, oversensitive assholes too.

    Did someone call me?
    🙂
    (I try to be better, but I know sometimes I don’t try enough.)

  122. says

    I would like to say that I’ve been watching the show a few years and have enjoyed it very much. Thank you for all the effort you put in. However, I was disappointed with Matt and Heina in this last episode. I think they need to apologize to Jasper. He referred to Heina as “your guest,” at about 57:30 and they put him down for it. I happen to disagree with Jasper on almost every point he brought up, but other callers have forgotten a guests name, or even a regular co-hosts name, and not been subsequently put down. In my opinion he did not refer to Heina as “your guest” in a derogatory or condescending manner, unlike how both Heina and Matt responded to him. I found that disappointing and unjustified. Just my feedback. Thank you again for the show and I will continue watching.

  123. Jasper says

    @Narf
    “You’re cherry-picking like mad, man. Were you able to find any other graphs in that group that supported your proposition?
    I prefer this one, from the same survey: Young women experience particularly severe forms of online harassment.”

    Am I cherry picking though? I am presenting the graph that takes into account all internet users. You’re selecting a particular age range and drawing conclusions from it. You are in fact the one who is cherry picking, you’re saying statistics that represent all internet users are invalid because you can cherry pick a particular age bracket. What a joke.

    More welcoming toward men – 44
    More welcoming toward women – 3
    More welcoming toward both – 51
    And the Pew poll is self-reporting, on top of that. Heina was talking about studies that took various, controlled statements, went into online games, and said those statements many times in different games, with obviously-male voices and obviously-female voices, then sorted and judged the responses. Those sorts of studies are far more meaningful than opinion polls, and always skew towards far more abuse directed at women.”

    So people think that its worse for women, im not surprised. The media is constantly painting it that way, however this doesn’t actually tell you anything about reality other than that people think something. This study is irrelevant, the question we need to ask is are women actually harassed more? according to the PewResearchCenter the answer is no.

    But the graph I linked wasn’t an opinion poll… the one you just linked was an opinion poll but that isnt the one I cited.
    http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/pi_2014-10-22__online-harassment-03/
    This isnt an opinion poll, it is asking have you being “called offensive names” etc. At the very least this study shows that online harassment is not a gendered issue and framing it as such is dishonest. You clearly just don’t like the fact that the statistics don’t match up with what you already think, get some skepticism man.

    “Oh, and hey, did you notice that the specific graph that Jasper linked is labelled “Men and women experience different varieties of online harassment,” saying nothing about what he claims it indicates? And the two other graphs that I pulled from the exact same poll show the exact opposite situation from his claim, to a significant degree?
    And he has the balls to accuse Heina of “brazenly lying and misrepresenting reality.” It doesn’t get any more brazen than the shit he just pulled.”

    You need to read a bit further: “Among all internet users, the % who have experienced each of the following elements of online harassment, by gender…” The graph then shows the types of harassment men and women get and the percentage, do you know how to read a graph?
    This demonstrates that harassment isnt a gendered issue and that Heina was brazenly lying when she said “women are the most bullied on the internet”. Men get just as much abuse online, look at the graph again, do it objectively and question your bias.

    @Athywren – Frustration Familiarity Panda

    “What’ve the Romans ever done for us, eh?
    Well, I suppose it depends how you’re defining Social Justice and Social Justice Warios. Are you asking about the history of movements for the promotion of justice in society? Or are you asking specifically about current generations in the last few years?”

    This is a very good question and its hard to define. The problem here is that you’re conflating Social Justice Warrior with been in support of Social Justice, as defined by BusinessDictionary.com Social Justice is:
    “The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice.”

    Now taking that definition as given I am in support of all of these things, I am however not in support of Social Justice Warriors. The term Social Justice Warrior started as an insult, taking the Warrior from Keyboard Warrior, so right off the bat this is to do with the internet. I did a bit of looking and I think I have found a pretty good definition of a Social Justice Warrior, This is from Dictionary.com
    “a person who posts on mainstream websites and advocates left-wing orthodoxy, especially involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, gender, or gender-identity minorities.”
    I think that is a pretty fair definition, now what are these people doing? what are the achievements. To demonstrate this point I will compare them to another online group, GamerGate.

    Since I was asking for a specific example I will use a specific achievement of GamerGate.
    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate.5
    The Escapist updates its ethics policy in response to GamerGate.

    If you want to go on about how GamerGate is about harassment go ahead, but don’t use this to deflect the challenge (I am saying this now not as an accusation, but because I don’t want it to be deflected, this is a common tactic people use in discussions).
    Now its your turn, give a specific example of something Social Justice Warriors have achieved.

    “If you’re asking the broader question, you’ve got things like votes for women, votes for people in general who aren’t related to royalty (votes at all, for that matter), the abolition of slavery, the end of apartheid, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the minimum wage, the weekend… I could go on for quite a while and still not be scratching the surface.”

    I don’t think the term Social Justice Warrior even existed at this point, I am asking for you to give me an example where Social Justice Warriors did something, like a big campaign against whatever and then the achievement was (insert achievement here). The GamerGate example I gave is GamerGate demands ethical standards in game journalism and then the achievement was The Escapist updated its ethics policies.

    If you’re being more specific and restrictive, then it’s a smaller list, obviously, but you’ve still got the legalisation of gay marriage, the end of the idea in mainstream psychology that being transgender is a mental illness, the increasing recognition among the public of the value and philosophical soundness of atheism, and the importance of diversity in politics and media, etc… other than all of that, of course, nuthin’!
    You’re really trying to claim legalization of gay marriage as an achievement of Social Justice Warriors? no, that’s not true at all. Once again you are conflating Social Justice, with Social Justice Warrior. I will give you an example of what I am asking for.
    Social Justice Warriors go after Dr Matt Taylor because his shirt was offensive and was keeping women out of science, achievement was that he made a tearful apology:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mission-scientist-Dr-Matt-Taylor-cries-during-apology-over-offensive-shirt.html

    Thanks for reading, I know it was a massive comment but I want to make my points as clearly as I can.

  124. Narf says

    @Jasper
    Your chart doesn’t even say what you claim it says, man.

    And it is freaking self-reporting, which is worthless compared to an actual controlled study.  Heina is talking about controlled studies.  You’re not.

    And try doing something with the formatting.  That post is too painful for me to read the whole way through.  I stopped after the first couple of paragraphs.  Redo that thing with blockquote tags, and I might be able to get the whole way through your response.

  125. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Jasper

    The GamerGate example I gave is GamerGate demands ethical standards in game journalism and then the achievement was The Escapist updated its ethics policies.

    Oh wow, disgracetogamerseverywheregate managed to get The Escapist to do their googling for them? Oh my, what a powerful force for good they are. I’m surprised that you didn’t mention getting Intel to (briefly, before they looked into the issue and saw how incredibly misrepresented it was) withdraw their ads from Gamasutra after that site committed the terrible sin of hosting articles critical of the gamergate harassment campaign. Should we mention the achievements it’s thankfully failed to pull off? The people who haven’t been silenced, despite the groups best attempts? The people who haven’t been driven to suicide, despite the groups best attempts?

    If you’re asking the broader question, you’ve got things like votes for women, votes for people in general who aren’t related to royalty (votes at all, for that matter), the abolition of slavery, the end of apartheid, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the minimum wage, the weekend… I could go on for quite a while and still not be scratching the surface.

    I don’t think the term Social Justice Warrior even existed at this point, I am asking for you to give me an example where Social Justice Warriors did something, like a big campaign against whatever and then the achievement was (insert achievement here).

    Language evolves over time. In the Napoleonic wars, nobody was ever referred to as a Quisling – the man wouldn’t be born until almost the end of the century – but there were plenty of turncoats. Do you see?
    The abolitionists, the suffragettes, the civil rights activists, the unions, the anti-apartheid campaigners; likely none of them were called Social Justice Warriors in their time, yet they were the same. They gathered (not online, because there was no online) to discuss, theorise and plan. They marched, and they disrupted, and they resisted. They were troublemakers, firestarters, anarchists. I always find it quite interesting that those awful, disruptive people are rarely criticised for doing more, more disruptive and more radical actions than we do now. I sometimes wonder if it’s simply because it takes a mindset that’s regressive for the 19th century, or for the 1900’s, or the ’50s – mindsets that even most modern regressives find overly regressive – to stand in opposition to them?
    About a hundred years ago, you – or someone very like you – would’ve been telling us of the excellent work done by Lord Cromer’s National League for Opposing Woman Suffrage, demanding to know what good the Suffragettes had accomplished, and considering yourself to be a rather forward thinking and progressive Edwardian gentleman who was merely standing against disruptive radicalism.

    But, ok, you want an example where Social Justice Warriors, according to the definition that requires their presence on the internet, did something. Ok.
    Campaigned for decades in support of gay marriage. Got many nations around the world to legalise gay marriage, and many others to appear to be on the cusp of it.

    Now, ok, I’m confusing social justice with social justice warriors here… alright. So do you imagine that the legalisation of gay marriage was an inevitable event? That it would’ve happened with or without “warriors”? That the decades of campaigning were irrelevant, and that the nations of the world would slowly be coming to see the sense of marriage equality without that ever happening?
    Oh, wait, no, I see the mistake I’m making – I wasn’t a social justice warrior when I was talking about gay rights. I was only a supporter of social justice. It was only when we went too far – TOO FAR, DAMNIT!!! – and started advocating for the stripping of rights away from men (although, actually, wasn’t I advocating for the stripping of rights from straight people when talking about gay marriage? I seem to remember I was told that I was on a few occasions…) that we became a Social Justice Warios, therefore anything before that doesn’t count as something accomplished by the bizarre perversions of rational progressivism that we have since become?
    Or, I don’t know… is it just that you’re talking about a mythological beast that doesn’t really exist? Because there’s really not a great deal of point in that. Just sayin’.

    @Narf, 139 or thereabouts

    I’m guessing that the Steam guy’s attitudes involved 9/11, trickle-down economics, and lizard people?
    Mmmmmm, pizza.

    As far as I know, no… none of that came up, anyway. There was a lot of stuff about cranial capacity, though, and some hilariously clueless cladograms which, interestingly enough, I could use just as well as he did to prove that my cousin and I are members of different species. Although, actually, having said that, the cousin I was thinking of has a different skin colour than I do – her mother’s Italian – so maybe he would’ve agreed with that claim and not seen that I was mocking him.
    Oh! He also once showed me a flow chart that proved (beyond all possible doubt, mind you) that identifying as progressive logically and necessarily leads to supporting paedophilia and bestiality. The funny thing was that most of the chart was pretty accurate, but both of those conclusions relied on the idea that you could simply assume consent… he was quite confused when I pointed out that such an assumption is not particularly compatible with most of the rest of the chart.
    I probably should’ve kept talking to him – I don’t think there was much hope of actually getting through to him, but he was definitely a good source of ridiculous arguments – but he got incredibly boring, and kept interrupting me while I was playing Colonization (……it’s one of my favourite games. I have no excuse. Weirdly, he didn’t see the irony in a “multicultist” enjoying it.) to explain racial purity to me.

  126. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal, 141

    Unfortunately, there’s another faction of the modern social justice movement who are, perhaps, a little closer to PETA in their outlook. They are using tactics such as d0xxing, bomb threats, and online mobs to silence people whom they dislike. These are the guys who will actually get you fired for making a dick joke in private. I think they deserve the label “Warrior” more than the other two, and I would argue that their accomplishments so far have been entirely negative.

    I have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. That is the tactics of anti-feminist shitholes like 4chan and anti-feminist celebrities like Thunderfoot. You need to do your research. You have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re blatantly lying.

    Supposedly, there are “SJWs” who do engage in those tactics… but I’ve personally never seen any evidence of it, and given the existence of “psyops” like “operation lollipop” and #notyoursockpuppet it’s kind of hard to actually believe a word of it. I guess that’s going to be a big problem for MRAs, gaters, and other members of the regressosphere going forward. Cry wolf often enough, and plan the crying of wolf out in the open where, no matter how many proxies you’re behind, people can actually see you often enough, and pretty much only the true believers and breathtakingly gullible will believe a single word you say.
    As things currently stand, I’d double check if one told me the sky was blue.

  127. says

    Things Bugmaster has ignored (not a comprehensive list):
    Ignored thing #1

    Narf # 39: Besides, isn’t the biggest problem that we have with the current religious situation that fact that the fundies have taken over our political process and are trying to impose their conservative, misogynistic, anti-science bullshit onto the rest of us?  Yes, I’d oppose theists for the pure irrationality of it, even if we just had a bunch of liberal theists, but the activity of the fundamentalists is what really gets me going.

    Bugmaster’s response to this was to focus on the gently mocking tone of Narf’s remark and to express the fear that TAE might turn into “yet another social justice podcast (albeit with an atheistic flavor). I do want more theists to call in, as opposed to — full disclosure — people like myself who are just calling in to argue against trigger warnings in textbooks or whatever.”
    Since the show is “The Atheist Experience” and not “Rebutting Theists,” my view is that atheists arguing about trigger warnings or whatever is actually MORE on topic and MORE in line with what Bugmaster claims to want: a show that successfully communicates the full range of living a truly secular life to people who don’t fully understand what it means to not believe in any gods.
    Indeed, although in the USA self-identified atheists skew male (and white and libertarian and anti-feminist), those of us who are women skew even more strongly towards feminism. There are obvious reasons for this, most of which have already been brought up in this thread, so the idea that feminism is in any way a surprising topic for a show that is about the experiences of atheists is nonsensical—unless one isn’t taking onto account the fact that some atheists are also women.
    Ignored thing #2
    Let’s go back to my response to Bugmaster’s suggestion about having two shows, one for atheism and one for social justice stuff:

    Remember, as I’ve been told over and over again when trying to bring my particular concerns as a queer woman to the table of organized/movement atheism: Atheism is strictly the lack of belief in god/gods, nothing more and nothing less.

    Bugmaster responded:

    I’m not sure what your sexuality or gender (or lack thereof) has to do with the existence of gods (or lack thereof).
    Ok, ok, that was glib.

    Bugmaster ignored my subsequent response pointing out that his glib remark could very well arouse the hostile response he mistakenly thought he detected earlier. He also ignored my explanation within the paragraph to which he was responding about why sexual orientation, gender, race, and other axes of oppression are relevant to atheist outreach.

    Ignored thing #3

    Bugmaster then went on:

    But the thing is, lack of belief in gods does imply a lot of other things…

    I responded by saying that I agree that lack of belief in gods implies a lot of things. I said, “I wasn’t saying “atheism is the lack of belief in gods, nothing more and nothing less” because I personally believe it. I really thought that the rest of what I said made it clear that I think that is a trivially true, but extremely limited view to take of atheism.”
    Bugmaster never got around to acknowledging that he misread me and misrepresented my position in his response to me. I believe my subsequent response made it clear that I fully endorse the approach of taking a skeptical approach and not presenting conclusions based on evidence and critical reasoning as premises, yet Bugmaster continued to lecture me as if I did not endorse this approach.
    Ignored thing #4

    I specifically went out of my way to warn Bugmaster away from making the error of mistaking my observation of his remarks fitting a sexist pattern for me accusing him of being “a he-man woman-hater,” which I think can be reasonably paraphrased as “evil.”

    Bugmaster: I will point out that your comment fits a pattern as well: the pattern of an ideologue who says, “given that I cannot possibly be wrong, everyone who disagrees with me is obviously evil and out to get me”.

    Me: I went out of my way to specify that I was NOT accusing you of being “evil” or a “he-man woman-hater,” but rather noting that my observation that your actions fit a certain pattern might lead you to erroneously conclude that I was accusing you of being evil, and warning you away from that error.

    When Bugmaster responded to this specific comment in #127, he completely ignored this content. Rather than responding to anything I had actually written, he addressed himself to (I guess) the tumblr SJWs for whom he proclaims his lack of respect—you know, the people who “use emotions alone (or even emotions plus your personal life experience) to guide [their] actions.” The people who refuse to “leave the door open at least a little bit for people who want to persuade [them] to change [their] mind. I’m sure those people must be annoying to Bugmaster, but I’m not one of them and neither is anyone else here, as far as I can tell, so his insistence on focusing on those parties who aren’t present to the exclusion of people actually participating in this conversation is equally annoying.

    Bugmaster, please start paying attention to what your interlocutors are saying. You’ve mistaken my confidence in my conclusions for a rejection of skeptical methods/critical thinking on my part. That, or you’re just using my words as a platform for your own rants which have nothing to do with what I’m saying, in which case: please stop. If you want to rant, rant, but don’t pretend you’re responding to me at the same time.

  128. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Once again you are conflating Social Justice, with Social Justice Warrior.

    I do not know how to respond to your “No True Scotsman”. In other words, you’re saying “Oh, it’s not a social justice warrior when they do things I like, but when they do things I don’t like, then they’re a social justice warrior.”

    Social Justice Warriors go after Dr Matt Taylor because his shirt was offensive and was keeping women out of science, achievement was that he made a tearful apology:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mission-scientist-Dr-Matt-Taylor-cries-during-apology-over-offensive-shirt.html

    Thanks for reading, I know it was a massive comment but I want to make my points as clearly as I can.

    I started talking about the specifics of the donger joke incident, and I explained how the “social justice warrior” took entirely reasonable steps, and the anti-feminists took ridiculosly over the top harassment, death threats, etc., in response. I think you didn’t respond.

    So, let’s talk about this new incident. From what little I know, the so-called social justice warriors wrote in complaints about the shirt. I doubt any significant fraction actually called for the person to be removed from their job. The person apologized, and then the issue was over. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Supposedly you think the so-called social justice warriors acted inappropriately here. I would like to know what you think should have happened or not happened. In particular, was the shirt an appropriate choice? Was sending in complaints about the shirt – with no calls for dismissal – reasonable?

    So you played up that the guy cried. I’m going to have to take a page from the anti-feminists in this case: When someone says something that makes someone else really really upset, it’s not necessarily the fault of the speaker. Perhaps the recipient over-reacted, or perhaps there was some particular situation with the recipient that the speaker did not know about and could not know about, etc. So, in some cases, the recipient needs to grow a thicker skin and/or not complain that other people made them cry. (As far as I know, the shirtgate person didn’t actually state that he was mistreated.) Of course, at the same time, it’s very often reasonable for the speaker to understand how what they said made the other person really upset, and see if there are any reasonable options in the future to avoid doing it again.

    In other words, bowing to a heckler’s veto is not an appropriate thing to do. Let me emphasis that AFAIK, the shirtgate person never attempted to invoke a heckler’s veto, but now you’re trying to invoke one by proxy, which is why I’m attacking you and not the shirtgate person themself.

    I’m sorry that adult conversations are complex, and sometimes it’s reasonable to offend someone else and hurt their feelings, and sometimes it’s not, and the rules for distinguishing between these cases are complex and nuanced. Of course, there are some commonalities. For example, the people who sent in complaints about the shirt did not do so with the aim to get him fired, to make him cry, etc., but he cried anyway contrary to IMHO a reasonable person expectation, which means I don’t put any blame on the complainers. They acted reasonably. However, people who send in death threats, pics with photoshopped semen on the face, etc., that’s acting in bad faith. It’s not communicating a reasonable complaint, and it’s not communicating a complaint. Instead, it’s simple threats and silencing tactics.

    I know that it’s hard for some people to behave like reasonable adults, but the way to help most of them improve their social skills is not to sit idly by and tolerate their behavior. Of course, I suspect a great many are teenagers and young adults, so it’s no surprise that they cannot take part in an adult conversation because they are not adults.

  129. Deevil says

    I want to point out that Matt Taylor, the scientist in the middle of “shirt-gate” himself isn’t anti-feminist (or ‘against feminism’ as apparently the “anti” prefix is somehow incorrect) and is in fact sensitive to feminist causes. Matt was crying because he was genuinely upset about the mistake he says he made.

    He realized it was a mistake.

    He felt sorry he made a mistake.

    He apologized for it.

    During his apology he teared up and cried.

    I seriously don’t see anything unreasonable here. The guy, again, was sensitive to the mistake he made. Not to anything concerning the reactions feminists had to it. To add anything more to the situation is, frankly, dishonest.

  130. Christie says

    The caller, before hanging up, that commented on Heina’s appearance and demeanor and then on Matt’s thoughts and the things he actually says annoyed me. Why is Heina’s merit on her appearance alone, but Matt’s is what he actually says, caller?

  131. ironchops says

    @ 111 SallyStrange:
    “I would warn against dismissing the “belligerent” responses overmuch though; again, there are double standards at play of which you may not even be aware.”
    I generally do not dismiss those type of responses outright (I’m listening) however my personality reacts in kind and it seems things (my emotions) escalate and it becomes difficult for me to remain reasonable, especially if the subject matter is something I am very passionate about. I just try to avoid that aspect if I can. I also do not like to provoke that kind of response because it makes me feel bad as if I have offended someone.

  132. ironchops says

    @ 117 Narf
    Yea, that is my Southern Virginian American Redneck German name except I am actually Scotch/Irish/English/Cherokee/heinzs57. I think/hope I’m human?

  133. corwyn says

    @157:

    he said that Heina was “…beautiful and wonderful” & that he “heard what [Matt] said in debates” and was “happy to get to talk to you”

    So the definition of ‘wonderful’ is now only about demeanor? Not, say, the things she has done? And how does demeanor instantly devolve to mere appearance. When you say someone is ‘wonderful’, you are talking only about appearance? Many of us use the word differently. So perhaps a bit of empathy is in order.

    Anyone who thought Matt got the better of it, took away something completely different than I did.

  134. Conversion Tube says

    Imagine giving a doctor a compliment on his new suit and then the people around you shout, Hey he’s a doctor too you know.

  135. Conversion Tube says

    Walking on egg shells, better not to speak to anyone in case they are offended you didn’t provide the appropriate compliment.

  136. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    New book title idea:
    “The Manospherian Candidate, or WOOSH!: Adventures In Not Getting It”

  137. ironchops says

    Off subject a bit:
    I have a colleague at work who is religious and an outspoken conservative. He asked me “What are we going to do about how our country is going to hell in a hand basket?” and said “Our current leaders are taking our country into the wrong direction, a direction that is not godly.”
    I asked him “Aren’t you a believer?” in which he snapped “absolutely!”
    I stated it that in the bible that times are going to be horrible and then asked “Why are you fighting gods plan?”
    He stormed off…..I wonder why?

  138. says

    Walking on egg shells, better not to speak to anyone in case they are offended you didn’t provide the appropriate compliment.

    It’s a damn sight better than all female-presenting people tiptoeing around dress codes and “compliments,” not saying anything about how uncomfortable said “compliments” make them feel lest they be accused of being oversensitive, unfit for professional work, man-hating feminazis, etc.

    The truth is, most people are perfectly capable of making positive remarks about another’s appearance without thereby casting the other person as a sex object or whatever. If you are genuinely confused about how to do this and are walking on eggshells because you have had negative responses to your “compliments” in the past, then yes, YOU in particular (not everybody) should probably just refrain from making such remarks.

  139. says

    I generally do not dismiss those type of responses outright (I’m listening) however my personality reacts in kind and it seems things (my emotions) escalate and it becomes difficult for me to remain reasonable, especially if the subject matter is something I am very passionate about. I just try to avoid that aspect if I can. I also do not like to provoke that kind of response because it makes me feel bad as if I have offended someone.

    That’s fair. That’s why I was just warning you about it. Sometimes it is inevitable that anger shuts down conversations.

  140. Christie says

    So the definition of ‘wonderful’ is now only about demeanor? Not, say, the things she has done? And how does demeanor instantly devolve to mere appearance. When you say someone is ‘wonderful’, you are talking only about appearance? Many of us use the word differently. So perhaps a bit of empathy is in order.

    If the caller defined “wonderful” to encompass a person’s thoughts, actions, and words the caller wouldn’t have used different terminology to describe Matt, he would have called him wonderful too. Whether a comment on appearance is appropriate and will be well-received is going to depend on the context and calling in to a show where the point is to discuss ideas is not the appropriate context to compliment a woman’s appearance and then turn around and compliment the man’s thoughts and ideas. Matt alluded to recognizing the inappropriate and unfair characterization of Heina’s worth as equal to her appearance when he joked about wishing he was beautiful too.

    This happens all of the time. A woman’s worth in intellectual or performance based settings is often minimized to her appearance and how nice she is. The media frequently talks about Serena Williams’s appearance as if that has any bearing on her ability to play tennis, for example. The media stories about Williams that discuss her technical merit alone are extraordinarily rare, and in fact she’s frequently compared to some unfair standard about how she has too much muscle for a woman and looks “manly.” This is tantamount to bullying. The reverse rarely happens with male athletes. Those stories are almost always about their technical abilities and styles, and if appearance is mentioned it’s the footnote not the main body of the article.

    Walking on egg shells, better not to speak to anyone in case they are offended you didn’t provide the appropriate compliment.

    If you are incapable of determining when the appropriate context is to comment on a woman’s appearance, than yes, maybe you should walk on egg shells.

  141. corwyn says

    @168:

    …the caller wouldn’t have used different terminology to describe Matt,

    Or perhaps he thought differently about Matt. Shocking I know. I note that he didn’t use ANY words to describe Matt. His comment to Matt was basically polite neutral, something I might say to someone I disagreed with, but was glad to have a discussion with. “I heard what you said”, not “I liked what you said”.

    Unless your claim is that Heina and Matt are EXACTLY alike other than appearance, your claim that ‘wonderful’ must describe appearance, would appear to be unfounded.

    The context you are getting from this conversation seems to have come from other conversations.

  142. Deevil says

    The biggest problem I see with the “..walking on eggshells…” statement is that you’re implying, probably not deliberately, that your intent and personal convenience when complimenting a person should trump how the recipient interprets the compliment. You’re also implicitly stating that it doesn’t matter if there’s an underlaying social norm to compliment women usually on appearance at the omission of whatever other attributes they may have.

    Not very many people are thinking that the caller was acting maliciously or overtly sexist in complimenting Heina’s apperence. and not her intelligence (and no, “wonderful” doesn’t count, as that’s too encompassing, not to mention the fact that it’s already considered kosher for a woman to be “wonderful”). No one is giving the caller all the blame. What people, specifically Heina, was trying to do during the call was raise people’s consciousness about how women may perceive your compliment of appearance but not one of intelligence, and how that may be a signal that maybe there’s a subconscious underpinning in society that drives this, and that maybe we should remove it.

    @161.
    If there was societal underpinnings that essentially had it that doctors generally only recieved compliments on their suits and not on their actual work? Yes, yes it would very much be appropriate to call people out on it. But since that’s actually not the case, your analogy is false.

    It’s like what was said previously, this really is an exercise in, “not getting it”

    I’m a man from an arguably privileged position globally (though I am Latino in the US) and I still get it. What’s stopping everyone else?

  143. Matzo Ball Soup says

    I’ve seen an argument going around on Facebook and Tumblr that goes something like this: “There should be more women in science, because women have special feminine ways of thinking and we could use more of those in science departments.” This is what the culture would describe as a “feminist view”.

    Now, as a woman who’s good at “stereotypically male” things, I actually think that this is an *anti*-feminist position. My position is that women can be just as good at science as men, if that environment is a safe place for us where we can develop our talents (as it often proves not to be in our current situation). Not some “special female version of science” –just science, full stop. When the people/institutions/cultures that do science are more welcoming and safe for women, there will be more women in science as a consequence. I think my position is the more feminist one, but I think I’d be in the minority.

  144. Monocle Smile says

    @Matzo Ball Soup
    Do people actually say crap like that? I agree that it’s an anti-feminist position. Perhaps it’s being put forth by those who attempt to come across as allies, but just straight-up don’t get it. I appreciate staying consistent with the theme of “not getting it,” lol.

    I don’t think you’re in the minority at all.

  145. says

    It was good having an ex-Muslim host. It’s something the AA is lacking, but I feel is massively in need of, especially considering it’s viewed worldwide.

  146. Narf says

    @ironchops
    Sounds like something I would do, yeah.  You have to be a bit more cautious about it at work, or at least most do; my departments at work have always been mostly full of atheists.  Hell, one department was 100% atheist, except for our one token Catholic.

    You’re generally okay with asking incredulous questions like that, though.

  147. Narf says

    @MBS

    Now, as a woman who’s good at “stereotypically male” things, I actually think that this is an *anti*-feminist position.

    Ummm, yeah, I find that particular reason to be a bit problematic.

    You know, what’s kind of funny is that the statement is actually correct, if you turn it in upon itself.  Those “special feminine ways of thinking” would involve not being an asshole who treats women in a diminutive, patronizing manner.  In that respect, a lot of guys could stand to work on their special feminine ways of thinking, themselves.

    There should be more women in science to help break up the old-boys club and make the environment more hospitable to women who want to be in science, perhaps.  I could get behind a statement like that, perhaps, although I’d still want to examine it a little further and clean up some potential implications.

    Oh, and totally random … what would be the proper compliment to ‘guys’?  ‘Boys and girls’ is perfectly okay, of course, when referring to everyone in an amusing, patronizing manner, but the only thing I’m coming up with that flows is ‘guys and girls’, which seems a little unbalanced.  Thoughts?

  148. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Matzo Ball Soup

    I’ve seen an argument going around on Facebook and Tumblr that goes something like this: “There should be more women in science, because women have special feminine ways of thinking and we could use more of those in science departments.”

    …ok. Well that’s ridiculous. There should be more women in science because science needs every suitable mind it can get, and many of those minds belong to women. Honestly, that shouldn’t even be a feminist position at all – it should simply be one of wanting what’s best for the pursuit of science and the expansion of our understanding of the world. That it is a feminist position, and not the general pro-science position speaks volumes about how screwed up our societies are.

  149. corwyn says

    @171 Deevil:

    People aren’t required to give the compliment you want, only the compliment they want to give.

    Any attempts to make complimenters feel bad about the compliments they give will backfire. If you want better compliments, *give* better compliments. If you want different compliments, give different compliments.

    that doctors generally only recieved compliments on their suits and not on their actual work?

    This sort of thing happens all the time in polite societies for various reasons. It is usually implicit in the context that a suit compliment is intended to reflect praise of the work.

  150. Jasper says

    @Narf

    Your chart doesn’t even say what you claim it says, man.
    And it is freaking self-reporting, which is worthless compared to an actual controlled study. Heina is talking about controlled studies.

    Well quote me then, tell me what my claim was. With self reporting there is a margin of error and it needs to have quality control, things that I bet Pew did but lets just say for the sake of argument they didn’t. What is your explanation for the statistics? the men were lying when 32% said they had been called offensive names? are you stupid! oh there we go, you just got called an offensive name. At the very least the study shows that men get harassed just as much.

    @Athywren – Frustration Familiarity Panda

    The GamerGate example I gave is GamerGate demands ethical standards in game journalism and then the achievement was The Escapist updated its ethics policies.

    Oh wow, disgracetogamerseverywheregate managed to get The Escapist to do their googling for them? Oh my, what a powerful force for good they are. I’m surprised that you didn’t mention getting Intel to (briefly, before they looked into the issue and saw how incredibly misrepresented it was) withdraw their ads from Gamasutra after that site committed the terrible sin of hosting articles critical of the gamergate harassment campaign. Should we mention the achievements it’s thankfully failed to pull off? The people who haven’t been silenced, despite the groups best attempts? The people who haven’t been driven to suicide, despite the groups best attempts?

    We can argue these points later but as it stands the achievement of The Escapist updating its ethics policies is demonstrably a result of GamerGate and has fulfilled the criteria that I layed out. It also demonstrates that online groups can achieve things.

    Language evolves over time. In the Napoleonic wars, nobody was ever referred to as a Quisling – the man wouldn’t be born until almost the end of the century – but there were plenty of turncoats. Do you see?
    The abolitionists, the suffragettes, the civil rights activists, the unions, the anti-apartheid campaigners; likely none of them were called Social Justice Warriors in their time, yet they were the same. They gathered (not online, because there was no online) to discuss, theorise and plan. They marched, and they disrupted, and they resisted. They were troublemakers, firestarters, anarchists. I always find it quite interesting that those awful, disruptive people are rarely criticised for doing more, more disruptive and more radical actions than we do now. I sometimes wonder if it’s simply because it takes a mindset that’s regressive for the 19th century, or for the 1900’s, or the ’50s – mindsets that even most modern regressives find overly regressive – to stand in opposition to them?

    Yeah im sure there were people on the internet and even off, (because obviously just because the computer is off it doesn’t mean they lost their values) that would qualify as a Social Justice Warrior before the term came along. I think that’s why the term came about in the first place. Simplifying it, it would be a Keyboard Warrior for Social Justice, that’s where it came from and that’s how the term is used.

    You could make the argument that if those people were the same age today they would be Social Justice Warriors but you cant just retroactively go back and declare these as things achieved by Social Justice Warriors, infact I doubt they would have even thought of many SJW positions.

    About a hundred years ago, you – or someone very like you – would’ve been telling us of the excellent work done by Lord Cromer’s National League for Opposing Woman Suffrage, demanding to know what good the Suffragettes had accomplished, and considering yourself to be a rather forward thinking and progressive Edwardian gentleman who was merely standing against disruptive radicalism.

    And it appears you can not only judge what past people would do in the future, you’re also able to tell what present people would do in the past, that’s fantastic.

    But, ok, you want an example where Social Justice Warriors, according to the definition that requires their presence on the internet, did something. Ok.
    Campaigned for decades in support of gay marriage. Got many nations around the world to legalise gay marriage, and many others to appear to be on the cusp of it.

    This isnt an achievement of Social Justice Warriors, you could make the argument that Social Justice Warriors contributed to a culture that led to this but anyone who held the principle that gay people deserve equal rights and vocalized it could also make that claim. My problem with this is it isnt very specific, with the GamerGate example it is very obvious that it was a response to GamerGate. With the ShirtGate example it is very clear that the apology was in response to Social Justice Warriors and going on social media and making there displeasure known. Do you see what I mean? both of these are very cause and effect, that’s what I am asking for.
    The problem you’re having is that the specific examples are basically just demands that offensive art should be censored or that an offensive advertisement be pulled.

    Really I think a discussion like this would be better over audio, would allow better execution of follow up questions and would be quicker.

  151. corwyn says

    @176:

    Not to mention that this premise is exactly the one the bigots use to excuse there not being more women in science. “They think in feminine ways, which aren’t suitable for science.” And they can point to empirical evidence on their side.

    Personally, I want more and better people in science, and couldn’t care less about their genitals. But I understand that I am biased by society, and so try to speak carefully about it to young people.

  152. Narf says

    @Jasper
    That’s still a freaking mess.  Try again, and use the preview button to see what you have.

  153. Narf says

    @176 – Athywren

    Honestly, that shouldn’t even be a feminist position at all – it should simply be one of wanting what’s best for the pursuit of science and the expansion of our understanding of the world. That it is a feminist position, and not the general pro-science position speaks volumes about how screwed up our societies are.

    You’re excluding the sadly sizable portion of our society that doesn’t want any scientific findings that contradict their fundamentalist religious-beliefs.  That is to say most of the recent scientific findings done by any organization other than the Discovery Institute … not that the Discovery Institute actually has any scientific findings.

  154. Weed Wacker says

    OMG. please stick to atheism. I have no ill-will towards feminists. but this guest host was anoooyyyiiinggggg. And condescending. Calling the caller “honey”. I didnt even care much about feminism til this annoying shit. STICK TO ATHEISM

  155. calvin_0 says

    “Why is feminism needed?”

    Because I dont like people commenting on my looks…

    Because I dont like people trolling me…

    Because equal pay for equal work is not a thing..

    Because nobody ever call me smart…

    *faceplam*

    worse guest ever….

  156. says

    Uh, yeah, dude, sure. We’ll just stick to atheism. Because when you’re an atheist, every other area of life simply ceases to exist and nothing else affects you. It’s like a magical shield. So we don’t have to talk about how oppressive gender roles, say, have origins in Abrahamic religious teachings. Nor do we have to give a shit that there are dozens of right-wing Christian politicians who sit on their hands whenever some white male gun nut goes on a rampage, but oh man, will they ever pull out all the stops in efforts to prevent women from legally controlling their own goddamn internal organs.

    Yeah, we could just “stick to atheism.” Or you could unstick your head from your ass.

    PS: Something tells me you don’t find Matt or any of the other regulars “anoooyyyiiinggggg” when they are condescending to Christian callers. Hm?

  157. Jasper says

    @Martin Wagner

    I am fully fine with people being condescending, I think matching insults and arguments together are perfectly fine and make the conversation more entertaining, what I have a problem with is if it is one rule for me and one rule for them. Heina seemed to have a problem with me referring to her as a guest which is a neutral title and was completely accurate. If she has a problem with me calling her a guest (which is objective) then she shouldn’t be calling me honey (which is subjective), all im saying is if its good for the goose its good for the fucking gander.

  158. calvin_0 says

    @Narf

    dont be, feel sad for the future of humanity.. i dont see a very good future for us…

  159. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Jasper

    [blockquote]words to be quoted[/blockquote] (but with triangular tags, like this: <) will give you the effect you're looking for. Neglecting the closing tag results in… that mess.

    You could make the argument that if those people were the same age today they would be Social Justice Warriors but you cant just retroactively go back and declare these as things achieved by Social Justice Warriors

    If asked to identify a prominent Quisling from history, and you mentioned a Spanish general who collaborated with Napoleon’s forces during the Peninsula war, people wouldn’t argue that the term doesn’t apply, nor that their actions don’t count as those of a Quisling, simply because the term wouldn’t be thought up for 120 years. If anyone did make such an argument, it’s likely that they’re simply unaware of – or ignoring for the sake of winning rhetorical points – the fact that the word “Quisling” refers to a steady target: Someone who collaborates with an occupying force is still collaborating with an occupying force, no matter what year it is, which force is occupying, or which nation is being occupied. Now, obviously you couldn’t use the term “Afrancesado” (the term that referred to those Spanish people who supported the French occupation of Spain) to refer to Vidkun Quisling, because he was collaborating with the Germans, not the French – that term refers to a moving target, and can only apply in some cases.
    Obviously, the term trans activist would not apply to the abolitionists or suffragettes, and neither of those terms apply to trans activists – the targets have moved – but they’re all bleeding hearts, they’re all “threats to the moral fabric of society,” they’re all social justice warriors.
    If you want to deny people the right to point to the achievements of their predecessors, then you need to make sure you identify a moving target – you can’t simply assert that your static target doesn’t include them because the term didn’t exist then, and things have changed around the target.

    infact I doubt they would have even thought of many SJW positions.

    Probably not, just like I likely haven’t thought of any of the positions held by the progressives of 2115, but that doesn’t mean that the ultimate recognition of women’s humanity and capability, or the end of racism, homophobia or transphobia, desperately hoping that they come around before 2115, won’t count as something achieved by the group referred to by whatever mindless pejorative term is used against the people who oppose pointless prejudices and hierarchies by that time.

    And it appears you can not only judge what past people would do in the future, you’re also able to tell what present people would do in the past, that’s fantastic.

    …………….you do know what a “comparison” is, right?
    (Also, when did I judge what past people would do in the future?)

    This isnt an achievement of Social Justice Warriors you could make the argument that Social Justice Warriors contributed to a culture that led to this but anyone who held the principle that gay people deserve equal rights and vocalized it could also make that claim.

    Yes it is. Everyone who promotes social progress is demonised by the regressives of their time. Granted, you are not of the generation of regressives who demonise progress on the front of gay rights, you don’t see holding the principle that gay people deserve equal rights as a bad thing, and that’s great, it really is, but pretending that there’s any significant distinction between the god-hating queer-lovers of the 90’s, and the man-hating feminazis of this decade is ridiculous. You, and everyone else who supports gay rights are as disgusting to Fred Phelps (who campaigned for civil rights, don’tchaknow?) and those like him as we are to you. Maybe you’ve reached the point where justice is distasteful to you now, but you are a social justice warrior on the matter of gay rights. (At least, I assume so – I’m just going from the fact that you haven’t argued that gay marriage is an affront to god and a crime against straight people, I do accept the possibility that you never supported the principle of gay rights, it just seemed safer to work from the assumption that you do.)

    My problem with this is it isnt very specific, with the GamerGate example it is very obvious that it was a response to GamerGate. With the ShirtGate example it is very clear that the apology was in response to Social Justice Warriors and going on social media and making there displeasure known. Do you see what I mean? both of these are very cause and effect, that’s what I am asking for.

    And you already got what you were asking for, twice now. But, ok, have another. Campaigned for pro-consent messages on some colleges. Got pro-consent messages on some colleges. And, hey, bonus for you – you’ve gone and tricked me into outing myself as a man-hater! (Because everybody knows that consent is misandry, right?)

    The problem you’re having is that the specific examples are basically just demands that offensive art should be censored or that an offensive advertisement be pulled.

    o_O ?

    Really I think a discussion like this would be better over audio, would allow better execution of follow up questions and would be quicker.

    I don’t have a podcast, I have no interest in having this conversation in private, and I like having the opportunity to research – audio is too vulnerable to gish gallops and similar tactics. Also, my microphone is unreliable. (Not gonna happen.)

  160. Narf says

    @calvin_0
    You’re right; the fundies and MRAs are pretty out of control.  Could be rough.

  161. Monocle Smile says

    @Jasper
    One of your big issues is a total lack of self-awareness. If all you had done was refer to Heina as a guest, that would be fine. But given all the other horseshit you had puked thus far in the call, the comment fit your miserable pattern perfectly and was the awful cherry on top. That’s why it was seen as a big deal.

  162. says

    My comment is directed at Matt, who said something like, “you cannot demonstrate the possibility THAT an ultimate or powerful being COULD exist. If you cant show the possibility it COULD exist, then all discussion on the probability or conjecture whether or not it does is useless.”…or something like that.

    Our laws of nature and physics didn’t exist BEFORE the creation of the Universe we live in, therefore a Being CAN exist which doesn’t conform to our laws.

  163. says

    Our laws of nature and physics didn’t exist BEFORE the creation of the Universe we live in, therefore a Being CAN exist which doesn’t conform to our laws.

    Sorry, not seeing the logical path you’re following to reach such a conclusion. This is an unsupported assertion. What kind of being do you propose can exist that does not “conform” to the laws of nature, under what alternative laws does said being exist, and how do those laws operate?

  164. Monocle Smile says

    Our laws of nature and physics didn’t exist BEFORE the creation of the Universe we live in

    As far as we know, this is an incoherent concept. I’m guessing you heard this from an apologist and are just parroting it, because this mistake is fairly common knowledge to anyone who’s ever googled anything about cosmology.

  165. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Regarding sailure1’s post, and Martin and Monocle Smile:
    There was some problems of miscommunication during that call. See my post 60. I just think that the language being employed here is too ambiguous, and it’s hard to give agreement or disagreement without first getting people to use proper precise terminology.

    Suppose someone asks me 200 years ago if an airplane exists (on Earth). I would give a proper answer of “no”. Suppose someone asks me if the rules of reality allow for the construction of an airplane? The answer 200 years ago is the same answer as today: Yes.

    Suppose someone asks me if a god exists. I don’t know, but that’s a question that’s open to scientific analysis (assuming “god” means some personal entity with powers and abilities outside the bounds of materialism and the matter in motion paradigm of Galileo and Baron d’Holbach).

    Suppose someone asks me if the rules of reality allow for a god to exist. In what sense? The earlier question was about the construction of an airplane. If we understand the question to be in that context – the construction of a god – then it’s a question amenable to scientific analysis. However, I think the “intent” of the question is something else, and I suspect the intent of the question is to ask for the untestable. Which means I have to object to the question itself on the grounds that it’s incoherent because it’s not testable even in principle. Aka the standard position of positivism. In other words, what does a “yes” or “no” answer even mean to the question “do the laws of reality allow for the existence of a god?”. At best, it’s underspecified, and IMHO I suspect that if we formalized the question, then we would find that untestable and thus incoherent.

    I really hate appeals to “realism” and “the fundamental rules of reality” in some sort of absolute sense. I wish people would stop thinking this way. This Platonic way of thinking should have been dropped long ago.

  166. Sir Wased says

    Oh man…whenever someone says “I think we’re in agreement on…” you know you’re in trouble, or rather the strawman they build is in trouble.
    It’s almost as if otherwise reasonable, logical thinking atheists lose all independent thought when the subject falls on feminism. On one side you have people screaming rape if you accidentally bump into them and on the other side you have people blind to the fact that there still are inequalities in today’s society.

  167. Spoon says

    >Hey, here’s a great idea! If you want a different show in which your atheism is undiluted by feminism or social justice — try creating that show! Because The Atheist Experience is not the one you’re looking for.

    I had thought you were smarter than this. Not everyone has the time or resources to make their own show. It’s not unreasonable for people to want to improve an existing show regardless of whether they are able to make their own.

  168. oolon says

    Haha, LOL at @Jasper trying to make Matt Taylor into a victim of feminist oppression against teh menz. Astrokatie was one of his main critics on Twitter, Phil Plait was critical too. They are all friends now! Must be Stockholm syndrome eh Jasper, from the trauma of being a “beta cuck”, as GamerGate puts it. You can’t claim he was harassed when he said nothing of the sort.

    He cried because the apology meant something to him. Everyone accepted it and moved on, apart from the anti-feminists like you who saw his heartfelt apology as an admission of wrong doing when in your eyes no wrong was committed. Matt T disagrees with you, get over it.

  169. Russell Glasser says

    “On one side you have people screaming rape if you accidentally bump into them”

    Citation, please.

  170. says

    @MAMelby helpfully storified the alleged “feminist harassment” of Dr. Taylor on Twitter. I was cited as being among the top three mean tweets made to Dr. Taylor. Here is what I said:

    “Why’d you have to ruin the damn comet landing for millions of women, girls, and people who don’t hate women & girls?”

    I also tweeted a series of images of some racist/humorous t-shirts and asked if he’d wear those t-shirts for a similar event, and if not, why not.

    Stuff like this, and the over-the-top reaction to it by the manosphere, is what leads me to believe that male claims about female emotionality and oversensitivity is just so much projection.

  171. Sir Wased says

    Martin Wagner, Russell Glasser

    I must admit I was in a bit of a hurry this morning (CET) and didn’t really look critically on what I was writing. My point SHOULD have been that you have people on both sides that takes an extreme position, whether it be out of ignorance or malice. I think we have to speak out against stupidity in the feminists ranks as well as stupidity that opposes feminism. Otherwise feminists might as well be one homogeneous group as Jasper suggested, because that’s how others will see the movement.
    I see Miss Dadabhoy and Mr Dillahunty as middle of the road feminists whose views are mostly aligned with my own.

    I’ve also run into a few questions along the way, that I would like another take on if anyone is up to the task:
    “Why not be egalitarian instead?” referring to the word feminism in itself favors one gender over another.
    Why is there only/mostly focus on male domestic violence against women, when there’s also a lot of female domestic violence against men?

  172. says

    referring to the word feminism in itself favors one gender over another

    For the simple and blindingly obvious reason that inequality in society is heavily stacked so that women experience far more of it. Though it’s inaccurate to say feminism “favors one gender.” In fact you’ll find a lot more sympathy and activism for the problems facing men — many of which are created by the same cultural gender roles that disadvantage women — among mainstream feminists than you will among so-called “Men’s Rights Activists.” The goal of feminism is egalitarian, it just doesn’t pretend that everyone is equal in their inequality.

    At the same time, feminism has evolved and is still evolving as each generation puts their stamp on it. Third-wave feminism was in large part a critical response to second-wave (especially some of the second wave’s sex-negativity, which is associated with “radfems”), and there’s an emergent fourth wave. So, as in atheism, you see different approaches to feminism, and not every proponent will see eye-to-eye on all issues even if their overarching goals are the same.

  173. says

    I must admit I was in a bit of a hurry this morning (CET) and didn’t really look critically on what I was writing. My point SHOULD have been that you have people on both sides that takes an extreme position, whether it be out of ignorance or malice. I think we have to speak out against stupidity in the feminists ranks as well as stupidity that opposes feminism.

    Actually, unless you identify as a feminist and have spent time doing feminist activism, I would argue that you don’t have a responsibility to speak out against the “stupidity” in feminism. Or, if you do have such a responsibility, that responsibility is tiny in comparison to your responsibility to speak out against sexism and anti-feminist lies.

    In this case, your carelessness led you to repeat a lie that originated among men who oppose feminism because they prefer male supremacy. I guarantee you that even among the most outlandish sex-negative lesbian separatist radfems, nobody has either “screamed rape because someone accidentally bumped into them,” nor suggested that this would be a good idea.

    You weren’t “speaking out against stupidity,” you were furthering anti-feminist lies. Which is bad and you should feel bad about it. Your intentions may have been innocent but the effects of your carelessness ripple outward regardless.

  174. Narf says

    @Sir Wased

    I’ve also run into a few questions along the way, that I would like another take on if anyone is up to the task:
    “Why not be egalitarian instead?” referring to the word feminism in itself favors one gender over another.

    Well, there’s the one side which needs far more work to get anywhere near parity.  There are some areas in which men are getting screwed, but compared to the number of areas in which women are getting screwed, it isn’t all that many.

    There are matters like alimony, but that’s more of an artifact of the wage disparity between men and women and the social pressure for women to become homemakers and take care of the kids, while men are pressured to go out and be the breadwinners.  I think a lot of that will get cleaned up by addressing the core issues.

    Why is there only/mostly focus on male domestic violence against women, when there’s also a lot of female domestic violence against men?

    It’s largely a matter of numbers, to my understanding.  For that matter, I’ve seen a little bit of PSA-type stuff trying to help men get over the shame of being abused and get help, here and there. There could be more of that sort of thing, sure.

    But probably 90% to 95% is male-on-female violence, which is the focus, and men who are being abused by women will get dealt with in a similar manner (although will obviously have to be segregated from the women, given the sensitivity of the women towards men, after what they’ve been through).  The largest issue from the perspective of abused men is getting them to admit it and get help.  If you think abused women are good at talking themselves into acceptance of their situation, imagine how much better men must be at it, given the social role-pressure.

  175. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    “Why not be egalitarian instead?”

    Be egalitarian instead of what? Egalitarian instead of an atheist?
    I don’t understand…

    (Super-secret fact: I do understand, it’s just a very, very silly question.)

  176. says

    It’s not like feminism doesn’t need criticism or has gone without criticism. But the best criticism of feminism historically has not come from men, but from women and other non-men who haven’t been sufficiently included under the feminism umbrella. E.g., womanists and transgender rights activists.

    Cis men can try to criticize feminism, but the odds are stacked against them offering accurate, necessary, needed criticism. Their cognitive biases lead them to mistake their discomfort with the idea of women’s full equality for a rational argument against feminist positions and/or tactics. I advise them not to try–other people have got this covered. You can help more by criticizing other men for being sexist.

    TL:DR: power dynamics are a thing, it’s irrational to pretend otherwise.

  177. Narf says

    … although, sadly, you’re not that far off from what others are saying on here seriously, joking or not.  😛

  178. Narf says

    … for a rational argument against feminist positions and/or tactics.

    Sort of like the recent attempts by the anti-choice/anti-gay-rights movement to cobble together a secular argument, once it has become obvious that any religious argument is going to be blasted apart by the courts?

    Their secular arguments have been embarrassingly stupid, which I guess is inevitable, when those secular arguments have fuck-all to do with their real reasons.  I don’t think Dominionists are very good at thinking secular, for some reason.

  179. says

    FYI, Sir Wased:

    “Why not be egalitarian instead?” referring to the word feminism in itself favors one gender over another.
    Why is there only/mostly focus on male domestic violence against women, when there’s also a lot of female domestic violence against men?

    These questions are to feminism as “Why are there still monkeys?” and “Were you there?” are to evolution. They say more about the questioner’s ignorance than they do about the subject of the questions, and they have been answered multiple times across multiple easily google-able platforms.

  180. says

    Sort of like the recent attempts by the anti-choice/anti-gay-rights movement to cobble together a secular argument, once it has become obvious that any religious argument is going to be blasted apart by the courts?

    Very much like that, I’d say, although dressing up arguments against women’s full participation in society in secular disguises has a much longer history than the “secular” arguments against LGBT rights does. They both have a strong tendency to reach for the naturalistic fallacy, too.

  181. Sir Wased says

    SallyStrange

    Actually, unless you identify as a feminist and have spent time doing feminist activism, I would argue that you don’t have a responsibility to speak out against the “stupidity” in feminism. Or, if you do have such a responsibility, that responsibility is tiny in comparison to your responsibility to speak out against sexism and anti-feminist lies.

    Why would it even matter what I have done in the name of feminism? If there’s genuine stupidity, why wouldn’t any criticism be justified? If I as an advocate for equality can find faults with the argument that is put forth, you can be sure that opponents will tear it apart. It is better to have good arguments to tear down counter-arguments and fallacies than to put your own fallacies out there.

    In this case, your carelessness led you to repeat a lie that originated among men who oppose feminism because they prefer male supremacy. I guarantee you that even among the most outlandish sex-negative lesbian separatist radfems, nobody has either “screamed rape because someone accidentally bumped into them,” nor suggested that this would be a good idea.

    You weren’t “speaking out against stupidity,” you were furthering anti-feminist lies. Which is bad and you should feel bad about it. Your intentions may have been innocent but the effects of your carelessness ripple outward regardless.

    See – you know how to speak out against stupidity in the feminist community 😉

  182. Sir Wased says

    Narf

    Well, there’s the one side which needs far more work to get anywhere near parity. There are some areas in which men are getting screwed, but compared to the number of areas in which women are getting screwed, it isn’t all that many.

    There are matters like alimony, but that’s more of an artifact of the wage disparity between men and women and the social pressure for women to become homemakers and take care of the kids, while men are pressured to go out and be the breadwinners. I think a lot of that will get cleaned up by addressing the core issues.

    Thank you for your take on it. In certain European countries more women than men are taking a higher education, though still lacking in positions as CEO, board memberships etc, but the day will come as a result of the surplus women having a degree, hopefully.

    It’s largely a matter of numbers, to my understanding. For that matter, I’ve seen a little bit of PSA-type stuff trying to help men get over the shame of being abused and get help, here and there. There could be more of that sort of thing, sure.

    But probably 90% to 95% is male-on-female violence, which is the focus, and men who are being abused by women will get dealt with in a similar manner (although will obviously have to be segregated from the women, given the sensitivity of the women towards men, after what they’ve been through). The largest issue from the perspective of abused men is getting them to admit it and get help. If you think abused women are good at talking themselves into acceptance of their situation, imagine how much better men must be at it, given the social role-pressure.

    The NCADV (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence) Claims that 1 in 3 women have been a victim of some form of physical violence, while the number is 1 in 4 for men.
    When it comes to severe physical violence the number is 1 in 5 for women and 1 in 7 for men. That is an alarmingly high number.
    Stalking and rape have a much higher percentage of female victims.
    Granted I don’t know a lot about US organizations, so I have no clue whether they are trustworthy or not, but I have previously seen a British estimate that says 40 % of domestic abuse victims in Britain are male, while 60% are female.

  183. Monocle Smile says

    @Sir Wased,
    A side note about referencing other countries:
    AXP is like 95% American-focused unless they get a caller from abroad. Most of the posters here are also American. Thus, we’re going to be extremely USA-centric in our assessments and discussions of issues. And…we probably should be. So while your British stat is fine, bringing it up in a USA-centric discussion might result in talking past each other.
    This is just my observation. I’ve ended up talking past people plenty of times because we’re focused on the situation in our specific country and we inhabit two different countries.

  184. Sir Wased says

    Martin Wagner

    For the simple and blindingly obvious reason that inequality in society is heavily stacked so that women experience far more of it. Though it’s inaccurate to say feminism “favors one gender.” In fact you’ll find a lot more sympathy and activism for the problems facing men — many of which are created by the same cultural gender roles that disadvantage women — among mainstream feminists than you will among so-called “Men’s Rights Activists.” The goal of feminism is egalitarian, it just doesn’t pretend that everyone is equal in their inequality.

    The word in and of itself does favor one gender. Though it is as Sally suggested an ignorant argument, as all you have to do is look at the history of feminism to see that it isn’t helping women at the expense of men. That’s the argument though, that there can’t be equality between sexes in an -ism where the word itself favors one gender.

    At the same time, feminism has evolved and is still evolving as each generation puts their stamp on it. Third-wave feminism was in large part a critical response to second-wave (especially some of the second wave’s sex-negativity, which is associated with “radfems”), and there’s an emergent fourth wave. So, as in atheism, you see different approaches to feminism, and not every proponent will see eye-to-eye on all issues even if their overarching goals are the same.

    Thank you for your take on it.

  185. Sir Wased says

    Monocle Smile

    To be clear: NCADV is a US organization with statistics on USA. Most of the statistics I reference in that post is from NCADV. Only the 60% vs 40% is from the British estimate.

  186. says

    See – you know how to speak out against stupidity in the feminist community

    No. I was speaking against the propagation of anti-feminist lies.

    Neither those who originated those lies, nor those who spread those lies (i.e. you) can be considered part of the feminist community.

    Passive-aggressive smiley to you too.

  187. says

    Why would it even matter what I have done in the name of feminism?

    Well, as we saw, you spread anti-feminist lies and ask rankly ignorant questions similar to those posed by creationists to evolutionary biologists. Feminist theory isn’t as complicated as evolutionary biology but it still takes some time to familiarize yourself with it. Doubly so if you lack the direct experience of sexism, as I presume you do.

    If there’s genuine stupidity, why wouldn’t any criticism be justified?

    Well, I disagree that “stupidity” is the word for what warrants criticism. Usually it’s ingrained bias, such as racism, transphobia, homophobia, classism, that sort of thing. It really can’t be chalked up to any deficit in cognitive capabilities on anyone’s part. So that’s your first step in failing at criticism. Lack of accuracy.

    If I as an advocate for equality can find faults with the argument that is put forth, you can be sure that opponents will tear it apart.

    Assumes facts not in evidence: namely, that you found faults with the argument that was put forth.

    It is better to have good arguments to tear down counter-arguments and fallacies than to put your own fallacies out there.

    You speak as if I never mentioned the valid criticism of feminism that has already happened and continues to happen. The problem for you is that you haven’t been able to show that you are capable of accurately identifying those fallacies etc. I suggest reading more carefully and condescending less.

    My advice is what it is. I didn’t say you were incapable of offering valid criticism. I said the odds are stacked drastically against you being able to do so successfully.

  188. says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal
    @ Monocle Smile
    @ Martin Wagner
    As to my statement about the laws of physics and nature… they did not exist before or even directly after the big bang. It took several fractions of a second for the Universe to begin to exist as we know it now. After that time then forces of nature started existing independently from one another. There are several videos on youtube explaining this… I figured you guys would know this. That is my fault for assuming you watch the same videos as I do.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs

    Since there was a time where they didnt exist as we understand them (Gravity, Weak Force, Electromagnetism Strong Force) we can safely imagine things not confined by those forces in nature existing.

    Its like saying at one time geometric shapes didnt exist, that itself aids a person’s argument which starts out with the premise a square circle COULD be possible because… blah blah blah.

    People accept that its possible other intelligent life exists in the Milky Way due to our understanding of the probabilities in math…BUT there is no evidence to support that ASSUMPTION and actually there is evidence against it.

    I agree you have to define your terms.

  189. says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal
    @ Monocle Smile
    @ Martin Wagner

    here is another video explaining the Universe’s birth and the laws that govern it didn’t exist as we know them now…

  190. says

    That is my fault for assuming you watch the same videos as I do.

    The faulty assumption you made is thinking the University of YouTube is sufficient education to make authoritative pronouncements on cosmology.

    we can safely imagine things not confined by those forces in nature existing

    I can safely imagine cosmic panda-dragons farting the universe out of their blowholes. I’m not interested in what can be “safely imagined.” I’m interested in what can be demonstrated with evidence.

  191. Monocle Smile says

    @failure1

    People accept that its possible other intelligent life exists in the Milky Way due to our understanding of the probabilities in math…BUT there is no evidence to support that ASSUMPTION and actually there is evidence against it

    What the shit? You DO know we’ve found Earth-like planets in our galaxy, right? What evidence is there AGAINST life existing on other planets?
    Martin’s right. Your “education” is laughable. I was a physics minor in college, and dumbing this subject matter down to the point where any twit on YouTube can understand it doesn’t actually work. The subject is nuanced and complex to the point where our language is largely inadequate and only mathematics can come close to accurately describing the concepts involved. in fact, very few things make my blood boil more than stupid one-liners about how any concept or topic of discussion can be communicated such that a grade-school kid can understand it. That’s unequivocally false.

  192. says

    @ Monocle Smile
    @ Martin Wagner
    Where do you get off thinking I am only viewing youtube videos filled with uneducated faulty information? Are you so ignorant that you have never even watched a video series or lecture given by an authority on youtube? Let me remove that ignorance from your head… Youtube is a media… Just like a book. When authorities post videos on a subject even the ignorant fool can watch it. You ass is showing Martin.

    So the fact we found planets = we have found intelligent life…LOL and you say I am un-edu-mu-cated…

    We know for a FACT, the forces that govern our reality DIDN’T exist as we know them in the beginning of the Universe. ITS A TESTABLE FACT, PROVEN BY MATH IN EVERY PHYSICS LAB AROUND THE WORLD…. ask Dr Tyson or watch his video…oh wait, its a youtbe video so it must be wrong…LOL

    Maybe you dont want to accept that fact, but it doesnt make it any less TRUE.

    Drake = mathematically impossible for life (and ultimately intelligent life)… NOT…. to exist in the Milky Way and even more so in the whole Universe. There is absolutely positively no proof of this AT ALL..period, end of the conversation. None nadda zip… yet you “safety assume its true” dont you?

    You are just so used to Drake’s math you accept it ON FAITH…why?…. because its freaking Logical. There is a rational, reasonable common sense statement to agree with…YET THERE IS NO PROOF IN IT.

    Fermi= If there is all this life, where is it? In out mere 100 years of technology we have created a techno detectable bubble around the Earth 200 light years around. Taken how fast our technology increases in a few thousands year we WILL HAVE explored and shown ourselves to 100% of the Milky Way…and the Vasily majority of the Milky Way is BILLIONS of years older…so I ask again…where are all these intelligent life forms? As our tech increases the detection of that tech decreases, but our presents can’t be hid unless our goal is to hide. So now you have to make up all sorts of fantasy theories about why everyone is hiding from us…

    Matt objected to the premise there COULD be a being that lives outside of our reality (laws of nature) because there was no reasonable logical assumption to suggest that…but he is wrong. We know for a fact, our reality didnt exist at some point, therefore its LOGICAL, and reasonable to suggest a life form COULD exist under those circumstances as well.

  193. Monocle Smile says

    @failure1

    We know for a FACT, the forces that govern our reality DIDN’T exist as we know them in the beginning of the Universe

    That’s not really what you said before, and so what? Do you have a point?

    You are just so used to Drake’s math you accept it ON FAITH…why?…. because its freaking Logical. There is a rational, reasonable common sense statement to agree with…YET THERE IS NO PROOF IN IT

    No one said anything along those lines. Try addressing us instead of the voices in your head.

    Fermi= If there is all this life, where is it? In out mere 100 years of technology we have created a techno detectable bubble around the Earth 200 light years around

    To quote Martin from another thread: “you really are breathtakingly stupid.” This is not only incredibly anthropocentric, but utterly laughable. We just found water on Mars. You really think we fully understand every inch of a 200 light year bubble? Because looking for our version of “technology” is extraordinarily limiting.

    Taken how fast our technology increases in a few thousands year we WILL HAVE explored and shown ourselves to 100% of the Milky Way…and the Vasily majority of the Milky Way is BILLIONS of years older…so I ask again…where are all these intelligent life forms? As our tech increases the detection of that tech decreases, but our presents can’t be hid unless our goal is to hide. So now you have to make up all sorts of fantasy theories about why everyone is hiding from us

    Someone hasn’t ever set foot in a physics or engineering classroom, I see. For one, technology isn’t actually exponential. Secondly, maybe come back after a few thousand years and maybe you’ll have a point. You are unbelievably ignorant as to how much space is actually out there and what we’re able to detect. Shit, we have trouble communicating from orbit to Earth. We have even more trouble communicating from Mars to Earth. Our knowledge of even the “200 light year bubble” is orders of magnitude more puny than you estimate and it’s because you’ve put no real effort into educating yourself.

  194. Monocle Smile says

    @failure1
    Also, that crack about “100 years of technology” is too inane to even address. Yeah, 1915 was the dawn of human technology. Holy FUCK, are you stupid.

  195. says

    @ Monocle smile…the idiot
    1- You accuse me of changing my wording and meaning… My exact statement was…Our laws of nature and physics didn’t exist BEFORE the creation of the Universe we live in, therefore a Being CAN exist which doesn’t conform to our laws.
    So you are either a LIAR or stupid…pick one.

    You toss insults at me and you dont even understand the freaking topic… you didnt do a millisecond of research or even bother to TRY to understand before you tossed out insults…you ignorant little uneducated twit…. Go do some research in physics before you open your ignorant stupid mouth again.

    2- I tossed Drake at you because you…like the idiot you are… you do believe there MUST BE life out there…why? Please name your source other then Drake that proposed the possibility of life and then please make sure that person wasnt referring to Drake… You are so stupid you dont even know where you get your knowledge from…let me guess you are like 30 years old…the generation that passes tests in school and fails to learn anything. and you insult me by call me failure1…

    3- You completely missed the point on Fermi and the 100 year tech = a 200 light year tech bubble…didnt you…my God you are freaking dumb. I will dumb it down for you…

    fur 100 yrs we all have done been sending them funny waves frum our stuff and thatem there waves be like travillin like out into da space and shit…that them waves had have dun gone in all directions so its like a purrty soap bubble around the america world and shit…

    Again…in the past 100 years that we have been producing technological detectable signals, we have created a 200 light year wide bubble around the Earth. Any civilization in that bubble WILL be able to detect us. Even lifeforms based on science NOT like ours STILL MUST CONFORM TO OUR UNIVERSES LAWS OF FUCKING PHYSICS… There are No fucking worlds filled with magical unicorns who use ESP to communicate or magical spells and powers to power their society.

    That 200 light year bubble around the world WILL grow…and has grown. How fucking big will it be in 10,000 years? If there are millions of INTELLIGENT societies out there MILLIONS of years older then us…why the fuck wouldn’t we have detected them? There are a hundred reasons we wouldnt or even that we couldnt detect them… but the fact the paradox exist shows that DRAKE COULD BE WRONG AND THERE IS NO FUCKING PROOF THERE IS A SINGLE FUCKING THING OUT THERE AT ALL….yet most people, even scientist BELIEVE there is life.

    maybe now you can understand what I was saying… When you dont understand something, I’ll get my 10 year old to translate science into idiot so you can get the point without me having to spell it out for you.

    4- The Milky Way is only about 100,000 X 10,000 light years… that is fucking nothing. The fact you think this is a large area shows how fucking stupid you are…but shit an idiot like Fermi doesnt know shit compared to the great and knowledgeable Monocle smile…

  196. Sir Wased says

    SallyStrange

    No. I was speaking against the propagation of anti-feminist lies.

    Neither those who originated those lies, nor those who spread those lies (i.e. you) can be considered part of the feminist community.

    Passive-aggressive smiley to you too.

    First of it wasn’t a passive aggressive smiley, sorry you saw it that way. It was to show knowingly that I had been a fool for saying that in the first place, which I acknowledged from get go by the way.
    But let’s separate this issue from me as a person so we can get rid of the ad hominem arguments.

    Well, as we saw, you spread anti-feminist lies and ask rankly ignorant questions similar to those posed by creationists to evolutionary biologists. Feminist theory isn’t as complicated as evolutionary biology but it still takes some time to familiarize yourself with it. Doubly so if you lack the direct experience of sexism, as I presume you do.

    I won’t justify myself or give my credentials to you, because it wouldn’t matter. Not to the argument I’m trying to make, nor to you as a person because I’m just some random stranger on the internet and I could make up anything about myself. Besides I find listing ones own ‘accomplishments’ only serve to embarrass people in the conversation and removes focus from the issue at hand.
    And frankly it doesn’t matter, a valid point is a valid point no matter who makes it, but for now take me out of the equation and try to answer that question again. Why would it matter what people have done for feminism, if they have valid critiques of some of the views? Even if the other things they spew is far fetched? Disregarding a persons arguments on the basis of who the person is and not on the basis of the validity of their arguments is a problem in all communities, including the feminist community.

    Well, I disagree that “stupidity” is the word for what warrants criticism. Usually it’s ingrained bias, such as racism, transphobia, homophobia, classism, that sort of thing. It really can’t be chalked up to any deficit in cognitive capabilities on anyone’s part. So that’s your first step in failing at criticism. Lack of accuracy.

    On this we disagree. Yes there’s all the problems you mention, but stupidity is still part of the problem, when certain people make certain claims and assign certain values to anyone that doesn’t have the same opinion as them.

    Assumes facts not in evidence: namely, that you found faults with the argument that was put forth.

    Let’s take me out of the equation again and assume I was speaking in general terms. It is better to have good arguments to tear down counter-arguments and fallacies than to put your own fallacies out there.

    You speak as if I never mentioned the valid criticism of feminism that has already happened and continues to happen. The problem for you is that you haven’t been able to show that you are capable of accurately identifying those fallacies etc. I suggest reading more carefully and condescending less.

    My advice is what it is. I didn’t say you were incapable of offering valid criticism. I said the odds are stacked drastically against you being able to do so successfully.

    It seems like I’m trying to have a broader discussion on the subject and you are having one on a personal level. This is my fault for using ‘yours’ instead of ‘ones own’ and using myself as an ‘e.g’.
    I acknowledge you have already answered the question I put forth after the second quote in part here in this last quote, but please answer it on a broader level and not on a personal level.

  197. says

    @ the idiot Monocle smile…

    And you fucking dumbasses think we Agnostics are like you… sorry idiot shit for brains we are not. maybe after you get some reason cells working you will grow up. you fucking twits cant even have a civil conversation without tossing out insults.

    you give me a link to a child rendition of something I have been studying for 10 years that supports my assertion here not yours and you think you got something over me…LOL boy o boy are you a fucking idiot.

    first of all dumbass… the Drake/Fermi discussion was analogical to Matt’s refusal to accept a premise as would a person who only favors either drake or fermi without understanding the other point. He refused to accept a premise that was based in a reality not like ours stating it didnt have merit because it couldn’t exist…as a person would say Drake has no merit if all they heard was fermi or a person who followed fermi paradox would oppose a drake inspired question….

    I came here to show Matt he was being closed minded…and then Martin and You got all insulting and fucking ugly…like asshole Atheist always do.

    you then got fixated, like a OCD dumbass on the analogy because, as I now see… you are just reading about it. Come back in a decade and I will explain what your middle school website isnt explaining to you…

  198. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @sailure1

    The following two statements are very, very different statements:
    > It took several fractions of a second for the Universe to begin to exist as we know it now.
    > It took several fractions of a second for the Universe to begin to exist.

    The first is true. The second is – I don’t even know. How would you test that claim? I suspect you cannot, which means the second claim is incoherent.

    I think we’re agreeing.

    Its like saying at one time geometric shapes didnt exist,

    No it’s not. The existence or non-existence of particular laws of physics is testable. The existence or non-existence of a shape – that’s not a testable proposition.

    Our laws of nature and physics didn’t exist BEFORE the creation of the Universe we live in, therefore a Being CAN exist which doesn’t conform to our laws.

    Choose your words carefully around here. In particular, several of the hosts always interpret – IMHO unreasonably – phrases like “can exist” to denote a positive claim that the laws of reality – whatever they were at the time, are consistent with the existence of the thing. If that is not your intent, then I suggest the following phrasings:
    > We do not have sufficient evidence at this time to discount the possibility.
    > Based on our current evidence, I estimate non-negligable odds that the laws of reality at that time would allow for the existence of that thing.

    Of course, with the second phrasing, you’ll soon run afoul of several of the hosts who do not reason properly in this corner case, and some are rather adamant against proper reasoning in corner cases like this. Specifically, some refuse to practice proper Bayesian reasoning and give estimates in areas of uncertainty. It happened to me.

    I think we’re again agreeing.

    I explained all of this back in #60 in this thread, and probably post #194 in this thread too. The problem is not actually one of actual disagreement. Rather, it’s a language and communication problem. I suspect that if you had a chance to talk to Matt and if you clarified your terms, you would find that he would be in agreed.

    Of course, I think he would strongly disagree with the premise “if it’s epistemologically possible that a god exists, e.g. if it’s conceptually possible that a god exists, then a god actually exists”. That’s the step of the argument that makes absolutely no sense.

    PS:
    Also, MS, might be a tad over the top on this one.

  199. Monocle Smile says

    @EL
    Over the top? Have you read all this guy’s posts? This ball of yarn was just itching to unravel, and boy, did it ever.

  200. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @MS
    Just seems a tad overzealous when AFAICT, it’s just a problem of miscommunication because of differing understanding of what particular words mean. No big deal for me.

  201. Narf says

    Very much like that, I’d say, although dressing up arguments against women’s full participation in society in secular disguises has a much longer history than the “secular” arguments against LGBT rights does. They both have a strong tendency to reach for the naturalistic fallacy, too.

    Heh, well yeah.  The women’s rights movement has a much longer history of being subject to this sort of stupidity, since back in the 30’s and 40’s, everyone knew that homosexuality was a mental illness, and it wasn’t even an issue.  You need neither a religious nor secular argument, when everyone just knows something.

    I haven’t seen much of the naturalistic fallacy in regards to gay marriage, which has been the focus lately.  Although I’ve absolutely seen it in the past, when the religious were railing against the dismantling of the sodomy laws and the passage of equal-rights laws to protect gay people.  “Secular”  arguments against gay marriage seem to be focused more on the supposed good of society … mostly based upon broad statements, without them even having the common courtesy to support the statements with statistics that they pulled straight out of their ass.

    I think one of the most hilarious arguments — and simultaneously one of the most sad — against allowing gay people to adopt (which is tangentially related to the gay marriage issue) essentially boils down to “Gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to have children, because bigots like us will torment the kids.”  So, do you see the problem here and how we fix it, anti-gay bigots?

  202. Jasper says

    @Athywren – Frustration Familiarity Panda

    If asked to identify a prominent Quisling from history, and you mentioned a Spanish general who collaborated with Napoleon’s forces during the Peninsula war, people wouldn’t argue that the term doesn’t apply, nor that their actions don’t count as those of a Quisling, simply because the term wouldn’t be thought up for 120 years. If anyone did make such an argument, it’s likely that they’re simply unaware of – or ignoring for the sake of winning rhetorical points – the fact that the word “Quisling” refers to a steady target: Someone who collaborates with an occupying force is still collaborating with an occupying force, no matter what year it is, which force is occupying, or which nation is being occupied. Now, obviously you couldn’t use the term “Afrancesado” (the term that referred to those Spanish people who supported the French occupation of Spain) to refer to Vidkun Quisling, because he was collaborating with the Germans, not the French – that term refers to a moving target, and can only apply in some cases.

    Obviously, the term trans activist would not apply to the abolitionists or suffragettes, and neither of those terms apply to trans activists – the targets have moved – but they’re all bleeding hearts, they’re all “threats to the moral fabric of society,” they’re all social justice warriors.
    If you want to deny people the right to point to the achievements of their predecessors, then you need to make sure you identify a moving target – you can’t simply assert that your static target doesn’t include them because the term didn’t exist then, and things have changed around the target.

    Here in lies the problem with text discussions, its easy to ignore points, like when I was defining a Social Justice Warrior here:

    “a person who posts on mainstream websites and advocates left-wing orthodoxy, especially involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, gender, or gender-identity minorities.”
    I think that is a pretty fair definition, now what are these people doing? what are the achievements. To demonstrate this point I will compare them to another online group, GamerGate.

    Here I found the most unbiased definition I could and then went on to compare this internet group with GamerGate. If we cant agree on a definition we cant have a discussion about it, we will just be talking past each other. Which seems to be what happened, you didn’t acknowledge the definition and then went on with your definition that a Social Justice Warrior is someone who fights for social justice, when that isnt how the term is used.
    At some point I also put forward the very simplified definition that a SJW is a Keyboard Warrior for Social Justice, infact this is the whole reason I compared it to GamerGate, to demonstrate that online groups can achieve things.

    If we cant nail down a definition any discussion around the term is meaningless, because as I said we will just be talking past each other.

  203. says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal
    We are agreeing on nearly everything. My choice of words would tend to be less specific when I assume the person I am having a conversation with is on the same page as I…again words matter and that was my fault.

    Where Matt and I differ on the premise of #1 “Its possible for an extraordinary BEING to exist” is in the fact at one time and possible right now there are places where our reality doesnt exist. So our extraordinary would be ordinary. You are correct, there is no way to test that … YET.

    As for me, I believe based on reasonable facts, both in probability and conjecture there is/are no God(s) (as has been defined to me). I am unsure as to if the Universe had/has a Creator being or if Extraordinary Beings exist. Time will tell.

    I also agree Monocle Smile was over the top in abuse, insults and plain internet bully tactics which is why I responded to her / him in kind. You reap what you sow.

    I would hope a Host like Martin would have refrained from the insults, but I guess thats just not in him. Maybe these free thought blogs should be over at 4chan… Martin could be himself over there I bet.

  204. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Jasper, 235

    Ok, I’m sure it’s desperately important to you that I notice the internet part of your definition. See, here’s the problem – that’s an irrelevant factor. It is 2015. This is the information age. With the advent of wireless connectivity, pretty much everybody in the western world, and a significant portion of the rest of it are online, to one extent or another, and communicate online.

    a person who posts on mainstream websites

    Depending on your definition of “mainstream” (as far as I can tell, it’s meaningless padding in that sentence (maybe it means “not *chan”?) you’re not far off a definition for “person” at this point – not quite, but nearly. Certainly almost anyone in the western world. So, as far as this adds anything of relevance to the definition, it’s “a person who engages in mass communication.”

    advocates left-wing orthodoxy

    Left wing orthodoxy? You’re either talking about unicorns here, or your definition actually isn’t as unbiased as you might think. I mean, sure, there are commonly held views on the left, but the term “orthodoxy” really doesn’t apply. The only reason to add that in is if the person doesn’t really have a very good grasp of English, which is possible, or if they’re trying to imply adherence to dogma, which is most likely, and particularly silly.
    A more reasonable way to phrase this would be “attempts to convey socially conscious ideas.” (Socially conscious rather than left wing, because, let’s face it, the concepts of left and right wing have become somewhat muddy and refer to more than stances on inequality, republicanism and secularism in the modern era, so we might as well be specific.)

    especially involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, gender, or gender-identity minorities.

    Ok, sure. Sounds reasonable.

    So we’ve got a person who engages in mass communication, and attempts to convey socially conscious ideas, especially involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, gender, or gender-identity minorities. Which still hits the same targets. Sorry.
    If you really, really, really, really, REALLY need to hold on to the “person on the internet” irrelevance, and the “left wing orthodoxy” unicorn in order to keep our predecessors from counting, that’s absolutely fine, but you’re tilting at windmills there, and I’m just going to point and laugh from now on.

  205. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I would hope a Host like Martin would have refrained from the insults, but I guess thats just not in him. Maybe these free thought blogs should be over at 4chan… Martin could be himself over there I bet.

    Please. Don’t (continue to) be unreasonable too.

  206. says

    Sir Waled,

    If you recall, the main thrust of my communications previously to you were centered around my argument that “one” generally speaking does not have equal responsibility to speak out against “stupidity,” as you termed it, in feminism, as one does against “stupidity” in the forces of anti-feminism.

    Everything I said can be applied to the general case or to you specifically.

    No. I was speaking against the propagation of anti-feminist lies.

    Neither those who originated those lies, nor those who spread those lies (i.e. you) can be considered part of the feminist community.

    Passive-aggressive smiley to you too.

    First of it wasn’t a passive aggressive smiley, sorry you saw it that way.

    Sorry you lack the social acumen to realize that smiley faces are out of place in this sort of discussion.

    It was to show knowingly that I had been a fool for saying that in the first place, which I acknowledged from get go by the way.

    Wait. When did this happen?
    Oh. You mean this?

    I must admit I was in a bit of a hurry this morning (CET) and didn’t really look critically on what I was writing. My point SHOULD have been that you have people on both sides that takes an extreme position, whether it be out of ignorance or malice. I think we have to speak out against stupidity in the feminists ranks as well as stupidity that opposes feminism.

    You never acknowledged my criticism, which is that you were more than careless, you were actively spreading lies that were created by anti-feminists to discredit the entire cause of feminism. You were more than careless, you were shamefully gullible and allowed yourself to become a tool of anti-equality forces.

    But let’s separate this issue from me as a person so we can get rid of the ad hominem arguments.

    I have offered exactly zero ad hominem attacks. You should be ashamed of yourself for not being able separate accurate criticism of your well-evidenced ignorance from an ad hominem attack.

    Well, as we saw, you spread anti-feminist lies and ask rankly ignorant questions similar to those posed by creationists to evolutionary biologists. Feminist theory isn’t as complicated as evolutionary biology but it still takes some time to familiarize yourself with it. Doubly so if you lack the direct experience of sexism, as I presume you do.

    I won’t justify myself or give my credentials to you, because it wouldn’t matter.

    That’s true, they wouldn’t. For instance, even if you were able to link me to a page showing that you personally are a professor of gender studies or a 30 years long feminist activist, I would still be criticizing you for having spread anti-feminist lies and also for not really acknowledging that that’s what you did (as opposed to a mealy-mouthed “yeah I was kinda careless wasn’t I” not-pology).

    Not to the argument I’m trying to make, nor to you as a person because I’m just some random stranger on the internet and I could make up anything about myself. Besides I find listing ones own ‘accomplishments’ only serve to embarrass people in the conversation and removes focus from the issue at hand.

    You’re mistaken in thinking that it’s about accomplishments. It’s about knowledge and understanding. You have already demonstrated that you lack knowledge and understanding. I have been telling you that in order to mount effective criticism of a subject, you must have knowledge and understanding of the subject.

    And frankly it doesn’t matter, a valid point is a valid point no matter who makes it, but for now take me out of the equation and try to answer that question again. Why would it matter what people have done for feminism, if they have valid critiques of some of the views?

    It wouldn’t matter. But it would increase the likelihood that any critiques they launch are going to be effective, accurate, and necessary.

    Even if the other things they spew is far fetched? Disregarding a persons arguments on the basis of who the person is and not on the basis of the validity of their arguments is a problem in all communities, including the feminist community.

    I’m dismissing your arguments on the basis of your well-evidenced ignorance, not on the basis of who you are or what you’ve done. I’m also saying that someone different from you, with more experiences with feminist activism or theory, would be less likely to show the ignorance you’ve shown today and as such would be that much more likely to advance accurate critiques.

    Well, I disagree that “stupidity” is the word for what warrants criticism. Usually it’s ingrained bias, such as racism, transphobia, homophobia, classism, that sort of thing. It really can’t be chalked up to any deficit in cognitive capabilities on anyone’s part. So that’s your first step in failing at criticism. Lack of accuracy.

    On this we disagree. Yes there’s all the problems you mention, but stupidity is still part of the problem, when certain people make certain claims and assign certain values to anyone that doesn’t have the same opinion as them.

    And they do this because they lack cognitive capacity, that is, they are stupid? I have observed that people of all intelligence levels are prone to making these mistakes, which suggests that the underlying problem is more complex. Again, your attempts at criticism fall short.

    Assumes facts not in evidence: namely, that you found faults with the argument that was put forth.

    Let’s take me out of the equation again and assume I was speaking in general terms. It is better to have good arguments to tear down counter-arguments and fallacies than to put your own fallacies out there.

    Again you speak as if I never mentioned the well-needed criticism of feminism that has been advanced by other people. You’re arguing against a straw version of me. Yes, theoretically someone else besides you could have some fantastic critiques that feminism should take on board. In fact, I’ve already named a few of those people and few of those critiques. So why to you continue to speak as if you need to explain to me that it’s good to have people critiquing me? Indeed, the very next paragraph that you quote from me has me doing exactly this. How many times to I have to say a thing before you stop pretending that I haven’t said it?

    You speak as if I never mentioned the valid criticism of feminism that has already happened and continues to happen. The problem for you is that you haven’t been able to show that you are capable of accurately identifying those fallacies etc. I suggest reading more carefully and condescending less.
    My advice is what it is. I didn’t say you were incapable of offering valid criticism. I said the odds are stacked drastically against you being able to do so successfully.

    It seems like I’m trying to have a broader discussion on the subject and you are having one on a personal level. This is my fault for using ‘yours’ instead of ‘ones own’ and using myself as an ‘e.g’.

    Well yes. You said “we” have a responsibility to speak out against “stupidity” in feminism, and everything that has happened between you and me so far has been more or less on that topic, with me arguing that the responsibility on you personally, and/or a general you, is actually not 50/50, on account of the power imbalance between feminists and anti-feminists, and on account of the general public’s ignorance on the subject of feminism–an ignorance which you also share.

    I acknowledge you have already answered the question I put forth after the second quote in part here in this last quote, but please answer it on a broader level and not on a personal level.

    I was speaking and continue to speak on both levels.
    Until you specifically acknowledge that you spread a pernicious and damaging lie created by anti-feminists to discredit the cause of feminism, any apologies for carelessness in your previous writing count for nothing.

  207. Sir Wased says

    SallyStrange

    Sir Waled,

    Thank you for clarifying it was a typo.

    If you recall, the main thrust of my communications previously to you were centered around my argument that “one” generally speaking does not have equal responsibility to speak out against “stupidity,” as you termed it, in feminism, as one does against “stupidity” in the forces of anti-feminism.

    Everything I said can be applied to the general case or to you specifically.

    Let’s test that.

    If I as an advocate for equality can find faults with the argument that is put forth, you can be sure that opponents will tear it apart.

    Assumes facts not in evidence: namely, that you found faults with the argument that was put forth.

    How can this be applied to the general case? That is an argument purely based on who you think I am.

    Sorry you lack the social acumen to realize that smiley faces are out of place in this sort of discussion.

    There it is again – that ad hominem argument – Instead of what you write you could write: ‘Know that smiley faces are out of place in this sort of discussion.’
    What if I in return wrote: ‘Sorry you don’t have the empathy to see things from more than one perspective’
    Where would that get us? All we would ever accomplish would be to tear at each other and run the errands of the anti feminist movement. E.g What do you think people on the fence about feminism would think if they saw that?

    Wait. When did this happen?
    Oh. You mean this?

    I must admit I was in a bit of a hurry this morning (CET) and didn’t really look critically on what I was writing. My point SHOULD have been that you have people on both sides that takes an extreme position, whether it be out of ignorance or malice. I think we have to speak out against stupidity in the feminists ranks as well as stupidity that opposes feminism.

    Yes that and when you confronted me with it again, I went even further because I knew that wasn’t enough.

    You never acknowledged my criticism, which is that you were more than careless, you were actively spreading lies that were created by anti-feminists to discredit the entire cause of feminism. You were more than careless, you were shamefully gullible and allowed yourself to become a tool of anti-equality forces.

    The fact that I made fun of my own stupidity on the matter, because it was stupidity that had me writing that – in form of exaggeration, was an admission and an acknowledgement of your criticism. If you can’t see that I don’t think we have anything more to talk about.

    I have offered exactly zero ad hominem attacks. You should be ashamed of yourself for not being able separate accurate criticism of your well-evidenced ignorance from an ad hominem attack.

    I intentionally called it ad hominem arguments as I didn’t see them as attacks. If I had said attacks, I would have been ashamed, but as it stands I still maintain that the two of us won’t have productive debate until my person is out of the conversation. You could very well have a lot of knowledge and be right on a lot of points, but it is cluttered up by personal stuff.

    That’s true, they wouldn’t. For instance, even if you were able to link me to a page showing that you personally are a professor of gender studies or a 30 years long feminist activist, I would still be criticizing you for having spread anti-feminist lies and also for not really acknowledging that that’s what you did (as opposed to a mealy-mouthed “yeah I was kinda careless wasn’t I” not-pology).

    I think we agree on credentials, so nothing to add, the rest of the point I addressed elsewhere.

    You’re mistaken in thinking that it’s about accomplishments. It’s about knowledge and understanding. You have already demonstrated that you lack knowledge and understanding. I have been telling you that in order to mount effective criticism of a subject, you must have knowledge and understanding of the subject.

    Are you sure? So far you haven’t inquired as to what I know or don’t know, but assumed a lot.

    It wouldn’t matter. But it would increase the likelihood that any critiques they launch are going to be effective, accurate, and necessary.

    Who, or maybe what, will determine the necessity, if the effectiveness and accuracy isn’t in question? For instance; It can be necessary to get things moving to go in one direction, but unnecessary to get things moving in another direction, or uphold the status quo.

    I’m dismissing your arguments on the basis of your well-evidenced ignorance, not on the basis of who you are or what you’ve done. I’m also saying that someone different from you, with more experiences with feminist activism or theory, would be less likely to show the ignorance you’ve shown today and as such would be that much more likely to advance accurate critiques.

    Therein lies the problem. First off I’m talking about in general and you’re bringing it to a personal level. Secondly you’re dismissing arguments on the basis of something else that have been said and not on the merit of the argument itself. Also well evidenced? No, you have been going on about one thing that I have done and then based the rest of your ‘evidence’ on that.

    And they do this because they lack cognitive capacity, that is, they are stupid? I have observed that people of all intelligence levels are prone to making these mistakes, which suggests that the underlying problem is more complex. Again, your attempts at criticism fall short.

    I am not calling them stupid, I’m saying there’s stupidity within all movements and people.
    Stupidity – behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment.
    Everyone lacks judgement once in a while and in certain areas. For instance maybe it isn’t very smart to rushing into making a statement at 7 in the morning right before you go to work, just because you’re eager to participate in the debate and not really having the time to balance out the exaggeration or better yet not make them exaggerations.

    Again you speak as if I never mentioned the well-needed criticism of feminism that has been advanced by other people. You’re arguing against a straw version of me. Yes, theoretically someone else besides you could have some fantastic critiques that feminism should take on board. In fact, I’ve already named a few of those people and few of those critiques. So why to you continue to speak as if you need to explain to me that it’s good to have people critiquing me? Indeed, the very next paragraph that you quote from me has me doing exactly this. How many times to I have to say a thing before you stop pretending that I haven’t said it?

    I admit I have been bad at acknowledging what you have written. This wasn’t done out of malice. I do see that you consider criticism to be a good thing.
    However I do not know what facts or non-facts you are referring to. I was putting forth a hypothetical and not attacking you or your stance on any matter. In fact I was airing my concern that faults in the argumentation, whether it be documentation or coherency or something else altogether would make an anti-feminist argument less weak against a feminist ditto.

    Well yes. You said “we” have a responsibility to speak out against “stupidity” in feminism, and everything that has happened between you and me so far has been more or less on that topic, with me arguing that the responsibility on you personally, and/or a general you, is actually not 50/50, on account of the power imbalance between feminists and anti-feminists, and on account of the general public’s ignorance on the subject of feminism–an ignorance which you also share.

    Do I share that ignorance or have you build straw men for me?

    I was speaking and continue to speak on both levels.

    You do in some instances, but because you want to make it a personal conversation and I want to make it a general conversation, we speak/write past each other and you miss opportunities to make your points on both levels. This is why I suggested that we should take it to a non-personalized conversation instead.

    Until you specifically acknowledge that you spread a pernicious and damaging lie created by anti-feminists to discredit the cause of feminism, any apologies for carelessness in your previous writing count for nothing.

    If you can’t accept what I have already written on the matter, I’m not sure we should continue this conversation.

  208. Jasper says

    @Athywren – Frustration Familiarity Panda

    So we’ve got a person who engages in mass communication, and attempts to convey socially conscious ideas, especially involving the treatment of ethnic, racial, gender, or gender-identity minorities. Which still hits the same targets. Sorry.
    If you really, really, really, really, REALLY need to hold on to the “person on the internet” irrelevance, and the “left wing orthodoxy” unicorn in order to keep our predecessors from counting, that’s absolutely fine, but you’re tilting at windmills there, and I’m just going to point and laugh from now on.

    I said earlier that SJW’s can exist off the internet (their positions don’t change when they turn off the computer) I was just making the point that the term came about on the internet. But hey I am perfectly fine with your tacit admission that they don’t achieve anything over the internet.

    Let me just give you a list of things that connect SJW’s, maybe this will provide a better definition.

    1. Feminism, an SJW is a feminist.
    2. They are left wing.
    3. Everything is sexist, everything is racist, from an innocuous compliment to Grand Theft Auto.
    4. Everything is magnified, things that are trivial are made into big deals, man-spreading is an issue as is micro-aggression’s.
    5. They are language police.
    6. SJW’s claim to stand for equality and call themselves progressives.

    I think this is a pretty good definition (sorta definition) of what an SJW is. Also notable is that a commonly held position is that:

    You cant be racist against white people, you cant be sexist against men. This particular position provides justification for racism and leads to people judging peoples worth based on race, at the extremes they’re are just the flipside of StormFront. Which is why StormFront or SJW exists:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/StormfrontorSJW/?count=75&after=t3_3dwbjh

    We draw distinctions between groups all the time, it is the very reason that feminism gets broken up into waves of 1’st 2’nd 3’d etc.
    I hope this clarifies things a bit.

  209. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Jasper

    Let me just give you a list of things that connect SJW’s, maybe this will provide a better definition.
    1. Feminism, an SJW is a feminist.

    Mm… I’d actually argue that this isn’t necessarily the case – for instance, more modern Christian fundamentalists would probably call you a SJW for not cheerleading for homophobia along with them – but it’s certainly true that a logically and consistently held social justice position does include feminism, so, fine.

    2. They are left wing.

    No, it’s entirely possible to believe in and even promote the basic humanity of people who are Not Like You while still advocating for conservative fiscal policies – hence my use of socially conscious rather than the overly simplistic left/right dichotomy in my last comment. I do think that there’s a contradiction inherent in that, but it’s still possible – kind of like how I am absolutely in favour of animal rights, but still eat meat far more regularly than is compatible with that stance when the state of meat production is the way it is.

    3. Everything is sexist, everything is racist, from an innocuous compliment to Grand Theft Auto.

    Hah! So your issue is with unicorns? If only you were willing to put as much time into the most basic level of skepticism as you are into coming up with silly definitions for the people who offend you.
    Seriously, get a fucking clue. And also maybe consider learning that just because some things are indicative of or contain racist or sexist attitudes, that doesn’t mean that they are the worst thing that ever existed, nor that they are wholly bad and it’s impossible to appreciate the positive aspects of them – you just probably shouldn’t do it uncritically (which means “without thinking about it”).
    Another thing worth thinking about is that, while it’s entirely possible for a thing to be sort of ok – if a bit weird if you ever stop to think about it – when taken as an isolated incident, if that thing is not an isolated incident, it can become a part of a very bad thing, while not, in and of itself, being a world-shatteringly awful thing. Take a drop of water, for instance. A drop of water is fine. I like drops of water. Personally, I really like it when it’s raining in that really fine way that it sometimes rains, and it’s warm and it splashes on your forehead, and it’s nice. I’m not such a fan if it’s cold and it’s coming in at that angle that you just can’t seem to do anything about, and it splashes in your eyes and blinds you for a second, but there are certainly worse things in the world than cold, uncomfortable rain rain. I can deal with that well enough. I do not, however, enjoy drowning. If I am drowning and flailing around for help, and you dismiss me by saying, “what? It’s just a drop of water!” then you’ve kind of missed the problem, and your focus is entirely wrong.

    4. Everything is magnified, things that are trivial are made into big deals, man-spreading is an issue as is micro-aggression’s.

    Seriously? You think that commenting on the people whose genitals are so sensitive that they think they need to take up three seats worth of space on crowded public transport is magnifying a trivial issue? You know what’s magnifying a trivial issue? Freaking the fuck out over criticism of the fact that some people don’t realise that the seats are for everyone. Don’t get me wrong, I get it, public transport seating sucks, but it sucks for everyone. The fact that I am not happy with the legroom I have doesn’t mean it’s alright for me to take half of yours.
    And could you provide me with a definition of micro-aggressions? Something tells me you you don’t have the slightest clue what they are or how they’re relevant beyond, “the bad people say it, so it’s a bad idea!”

    5. They are language police.

    Have you been arrested recently for using a naughty word? Oh me, oh my. You’d better get on to Amnesty about that.

    6. SJW’s claim to stand for equality and call themselves progressives.

    “Claim to”? Do you mean that in the way that MRAs and the like claim to be rational, or in the way that biologists claim to study biology?

    Also notable is that a commonly held position is that:
    You cant be racist against white people, you cant be sexist against men.

    Tonight in, “Things Jasper Doesn’t Have A Fucking Clue About”:
    The difference between a personal prejudice and systematic power imbalances.

    This particular position provides justification for racism and leads to people judging peoples worth based on race, at the extremes they’re are just the flipside of StormFront.

    Congratulations. You’re an idiot. And, believe me, as a member of the Language Police, I will be arresting myself for calling you that later. The charge? Death. BY STRONGLY WORDED CRITICISM THAT MAKES ME FEEL A BIT BAD ABOUT MYSELF!!!!
    Brutal, I know. I know. But it’s the only way we can maintain our grip on this world.

    I hope this clarifies things a bit.

    It certainly clarifies how seriously I shouldn’t be taking you.

  210. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jasper

    You cant be racist against white people, you cant be sexist against men.

    No one says this. This is a blatant strawman. Or you are horribly confusing and conflating two very different things. I’m not sure which.

    4. Everything is magnified, things that are trivial are made into big deals, man-spreading is an issue as is micro-aggression’s.

    And what exactly are you doing here? You’re doing the same thing. Just pointing that out. Apparently, you think that many of the things that SJWs complain about are not big deals and not worthy of comment or critique, but yet you’re here to comment and critique the SJWs. You doth complain too much, methinks. I suspect that you do treat women like shit and that you hang out with people who treat women like shit, but because you are not the target of the constant but subtle harassment and put-downs of yourself and your friends, it doesn’t seem like a big deal to you. But as soon as a few random strangers online start attacking your privilege, you immediately go on the defensive and start calling it a big deal.

    By any reasonable person standard, the things that SJWs complain about are far worse than the actions of SJWs themselves, and yet here you are complaining about SJWs and not misogynists and the patriarchy.

    I’m going to use some words that you probably won’t like. Privilege. Ignorance of the extent of your privilege.

    I’m going to go on a limb and describe your character. It would make me amazingly happy if you could honestly state how much I get right. You’re white, or you pass as white. You’re male. You’re a teen or young adult. Your family was financially stable and you graduated high school. You probably are going to college or went to college. You often critice or joke about some men being too “beta” and “pussy”. You sometimes read the advice of pick up artists and practice it. You often joke about some women being sluts and dirty. You often use the word “nigger” or similar to refer to black people, perhaps seriously but perhaps just jokingly (less sure on this one). You’re libertarian, or at least you have serious misgivings about the current welfare system and people abusing the welfare system aka “welfare queens”.

    In short, you seem to be following the standard libertarian motto: “I got mine, fuck you”.

    It’s probably that it’s easy for you to hold SJWs in contempt but not misogyny because SJWs target you and your privilege, and you are not the main target of misogyny. I do think that you are blind to the extent of your problem, in part because of unconscious biases, and in part because you don’t want to contemplate the possibility that you’re actually wrong and that you’re an asshole. Take a moment and take a personal inventory. A self reflection. It might do you well.

    Also, if you’re seriously open-minded, try a few experiments. Read some of the hate mail that some prominent women feminists get. Seriously – read it. Also, while I’m not entirely sure of the ethics of it, go make a dating account on pof or okcupid with a hot woman’s photo and a fake name, and make the profile something that you think would be done by a reasonable, decent, women, looking for a monogomous long term dating partner. Then wait for the messages to come in, and you should be horrified that men would treat women strangers like that.

  211. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS:
    This has become especially personal to me – well about as personal as it can be for a privileged white male young adult. I think a lot of these guys are just bitter about their lack of success with women. I know the feeling. I was there. At one point, I was very sympathetic to their position that all women are sluts and they like assholes. I’ve grown since then, thank god (even though I am still a complete and miserable failing in all social aspects and dating, in part because of reasons I know, and in part because of things I do not understand). I understand the self-centered mindset that can lead to that plus the seeming despair, and I wish to help others out, but it’s hard.

    I think for me, it was my real dedication to my humanist ideals that helped me out, plus my willingness to examine if I was wrong, and I was horrified when I learned the extent of the problem and I took off my blinders. I totally understand the position “it’s not a big deal” when people in online gaming say shit like “tits or gtfo” because from my perspective it’s relatively rare and it doesn’t impact me. That was me 10 years ago as a kid – I participated in that (though only mildly in my own defense ><). However, as soon as you take a moment to put yourself in the other person's shoes, and realize that this is what they get all day, every day, then you realize that this is a serious problem.

    /expose

  212. Sir Wased says

    Jasper

    5. They are language police.

    I see this argument from time to time on the internet and usually what comes after is the claim that the ones criticizing are infringing on the anti-SJWs* freedom of speech in some form or another**.
    What the anti-SJW people fail to realize is that the critics are just using their own right to freedom of speech to tell them what they find appalling about the arguments. The anti-SJWs could give reasons why it isn’t so, but instead many go straight to language police and calling people SJWs.

    *I use anti-SJW for a lack of a better term for the very diverse group of people I have seen using that argument.
    **I’m not claiming you do this.

  213. says

    Clarification for Enlightenment Liberal:

    You cant be racist against white people, you cant be sexist against men.

    No one says this. This is a blatant strawman. Or you are horribly confusing and conflating two very different things. I’m not sure which.

    People say this all the time. In particular, sociologists say it. And people who are interested in injecting a bit of academic rigor into discussions about social inqualities say it.

    What they MEAN is that “racist” is a specific term with a specific meaning that encompasses structural and institutional inequalities that simply do not impact white people and men the way they impact people of color and non-men.

    Nobody says that it’s impossible to be prejudiced against white men.

    But mere prejudice alone is not what makes sexism and racism such insidious and difficult problems to solve.

  214. says

    As for Sir Wased,

    You have zero advice to offer me about speaking to unspecified generalized persons.

    I am disappointed that you can’t take responsibility for spreading anti-feminist lies. That goes a bit beyond mere carelessness.

    That’s really all I have to say.

  215. Sir Wased says

    SallyStrange
    If by ‘advice…about..unspecified generalized persons’ you mean the thing about ‘the criticism of the feminist movement’ then I never meant it as advice, but rather trying to have a debate about different topics and an exchange of ideas, where this was only the beginning topic where I hoped I could learn some different perspectives than my own to widen my horizon.

    You not accepting the way I take responsibility, isn’t the same thing as me not taking responsibility.

  216. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Sir Wased, 246

    I use anti-SJW for a lack of a better term for the very diverse group of people I have seen using that argument.

    Social Injustice Warriors?
    …but they’re not all in favour of social injustice, merely opposed to the promotion of social justice, so that’s not really right.

    Maybe Social Stagnation Warriors? Hmm… Status Quo Paladins? Because many of them seem to truly believe strongly in their goodness, and follow incredibly strict rules of what’s acceptable… it’s a very strange kind of lawful, but most paladins are pretty strange when it comes to rules, and there’s no reason that the Order of the Frozen Peach would be any different.

  217. Sir Wased says

    @Athywren – Frustration Familiarity

    I’m not sure you can say all of them wants to uphold the status quo, some wants to go back to how things used to be back in the good ol’ days, regardless of whether or not things have ever been like that and others want to move forward to something that is completely different from what those they oppose want, so stagnation seems not applicable either.
    Champions Of Yesteryear? Not applicable for the same reasons stagnation isn’t, though COY could be a fun thing to call people if for nothing else than for the confusion it will cause.
    All my other ideas are worthless because they all have a negative connotation in the words themselves, like The Fallacy Battalion.

  218. says

    Sir Wased,

    If you haven’t learned anything from this exchange then that is on you, not me.

    Things I wish you would have learned:

    1. You, personally, do not have an equal responsibility to offer criticism to the feminist movement as you do to offer criticism to anti-feminists or to the sexist status quo. You have more responsibility to criticize the latter than you to to criticize the former.

    2. This unequal responsibility is because of your well-evidenced ignorance about feminism, an ignorance which you share with the general public.

    3. Google your silly little “gotcha” questions for feminists (like “Why is it FEMinism, doesn’t that mean feminists want female supremacy instead of equality?”) before posing them to an individual feminist.

    If you take those three things on board you would already be light years ahead of the average bear when it comes to talking about feminism. I am puzzled why you are acting as if I haven’t imparted any useful information. Again, that’s on you if you can’t figure out what I’ve been saying. I think I’ve been pretty clear.

  219. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Tp SallyStrange

    People say this all the time. In particular, sociologists say it. And people who are interested in injecting a bit of academic rigor into discussions about social inqualities say it.

    There is a difference between what Jasper said:
    > You cant be racist against white people, you cant be sexist against men.

    and what your cited sociologists say:
    > Society is currently not racist against white people, and society is currently not sexist against men.

    Jasper was addressing the individual, not at the level of society, which means Jasper is wrong. Jasper also gave an unconditional “cannot be” instead of “currently is not”, which means Jasper is wrong. In particular, there’s nothing in the laws of physics or sociology that would prevent the occurance of a society in the future which systematically discriminates against white people, and against men.

    So, politely disagreed. Jasper is wrong on this point (and others), and I have no idea why you’re being so generous in trying to save Jasper’s wrongness.

  220. Sir Wased says

    SallyStrange

    Stop – just stop. I’m talking about things I hoped to learn – you take that as I say I didn’t learn anything. This is what is wrong with this entire conversation – you continuously try to put words in my mouth and assume things about me. In the beginning I tried to ignore it but it’s getting old really fast.

    1. You on the other hand shouldn’t be allowed to criticize anything, until you learn how to differentiate what people actually say from the values you assign to them.

    2. I asked you to provide that evidence once before and you haven’t so I ask again; where is that evidence?

    3. Here you fail yet again. It isn’t my questions, but questions that were posed to me as I defended feminism and I answered them as best I could, but would like to be better equipped to answer them and one way to do that is to get different ideas from fellow feminists. I am thankful for those who gave me feedback on the questions, though they didn’t say more than I, myself told the people posing those questions.

    I was talking about the idea behind that statement, not what ensued afterwards.
    You clearly don’t like me, so I don’t get why you feel the need to be validated by me regarding your useful information, but here goes; You did have some thoughts for me to mull over and knowingly or subconsciously use in future endeavors.

  221. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal, 253

    Jasper was addressing the individual, not at the level of society, which means Jasper is wrong. Jasper also gave an unconditional “cannot be” instead of “currently is not”, which means Jasper is wrong. In particular, there’s nothing in the laws of physics or sociology that would prevent the occurance of a society in the future which systematically discriminates against white people, and against men.
    So, politely disagreed. Jasper is wrong on this point (and others), and I have no idea why you’re being so generous in trying to save Jasper’s wrongness.

    To be fair, there are people who say that a person cannot be racist against white people or sexist against men without specifying conditions on it, and they’re either not entirely correct or are foolishly assuming that they don’t need to spell those conditions out despite the fact that they must realise that there are those people around who need everything spoonfed to them and will leap to Hitler the instant something isn’t flashing up in front of their eyes in lights so obvious and bright they’re blinded by them. His objection to it is utterly clueless, of course, but the thing to which he’s cluelessly objecting does exist.

  222. Jasper says

    Martin here: Okay, I’m redacting a large portion of this comment, for several reasons that I’d like Jasper to understand, as reluctant to understand others’ points as he nonetheless seems to be. I’ll start out by heading off any freeze-peach objections at the pass by reminding everyone we aren’t the federal government, that it’s the whole point of being a blog admin that you act as traffic cop and step in when arguments are getting a little too heated and nasty (they even do it on Reddit), and that if you don’t like this fact, you have the whole rest of the internet to be angry and wrong on.
    1. The whole comment was over 2600 words long. Seriously. When a comment thread gets to where people are writing novelettes, it’s time for a breather.
    2. It contained an excessive number of links, most to YouTube videos by notorious misogynists like SargonofAkkad. If you’re trying to convince people you’re labeling “SJWs” that you’re not the bad person they think you are, this tactic is, shall we say, counterproductive. So is using ableist slurs like “retarded.”
    3. Based on the way the conversation is going, it would probably be best for Jasper to consider calling it a day and finding better ways to spend his time, like going outside. People arguing with Jasper have been clear in their points, but naturally they’ve been getting frustrated and irritable as people will when it’s obvious you’re just talking past each other. This may be, though I hope for the best, one where you may just have to accept there’s a deep divide and never the twain shall meet.
    4. A running theme in Jasper’s responses seems to be a blanket refusal to accept that others have life experiences that are different from his own, and if someone’s bothered by things that don’t bother Jasper, those people are just wrong and being whiny PC pantywaists. Case in point, here are a couple of unredacted bits from this comment:

    “2. They are left wing.”
    No, it’s entirely possible to believe in and even promote the basic humanity of people who are Not Like You while still advocating for conservative fiscal policies – hence my use of socially conscious rather than the overly simplistic left/right dichotomy in my last comment. I do think that there’s a contradiction inherent in that, but it’s still possible – kind of like how I am absolutely in favour of animal rights, but still eat meat far more regularly than is compatible with that stance when the state of meat production is the way it is.

    Jasper: You are still conflating SJW with someone fighting for Social Justice, I am giving you a definition of how I use the term and how I think the term is commonly used.

    This is fairly reminiscent of all those Christians who want to tell me what atheism is rather than listen to my explanation, or who want to tell scientists that their definition of evolution is irrelevant compared to how the Christian chooses to use and define the term. Step one in personal growth is understanding the views of others, and when you’re not, have never been, and never will be on the receiving end of systemic cultural oppression and bigotry, the people who are are probably more qualified to have valid opinions of its harmful effects than you.

    “Another thing worth thinking about is that, while it’s entirely possible for a thing to be sort of ok – if a bit weird if you ever stop to think about it – when taken as an isolated incident, if that thing is not an isolated incident, it can become a part of a very bad thing, while not, in and of itself, being a world-shatteringly awful thing…

    So a justification to bitch about really small things.

    One more time: Whatever doesn’t bother Jasper isn’t a real problem. In his own words, “things that are trivial are made into big deals.” I detect a severe empathy deficit.

    And could you provide me with a definition of micro-aggression’s? Something tells me you you don’t have the slightest clue what they are or how they’re relevant beyond, “the bad people say it, so it’s a bad idea!”

    Alright so you think manspreading is a real issue, I don’t care. If you go out in public you will be interacting with people, If someone is manspreading or has their purse on a seat ask them to move, there is no need to make it a big deal and make it into a news story.

    While I accept that manspreading is a trivial issue compared to, say, world hunger or the war in Syria, it’s a discussion that’s happening in the context of a larger problem: people (white straight males, by and large) who live in a position of privilege in society, and the many varied ways, large and small, in which they simply don’t get their privilege-blindness and how it impacts others. Of course, the empire will not fall solely because clods on subways can’t keep their legs together for whatever reason. But — to play on the earlier analogy — it’s an example of one drop of water out of a massive ocean. On its own, insignificant, but in the larger scheme of things, it adds to the nuisance.

    More from Jasper:

    First definition I found was:
    “Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership”

    So little micro slights that people would usually just shrug off but we are so first-world that we will instead coin a term for it and make it an issue. God help students when universities start implementing micro-aggression policies, it will just make people paranoid and create a climate of fear.

    Jasper remains stubbornly resistant to understanding that the microaggressions he dismisses as artificial first-world problems anyone should shrug off are, in fact, already responsible for creating a climate of paranoia and fear among those who experience them every single day. Jasper totally ignores the “based solely upon their marginalized group membership” part of the definition, when it’s the crux of the whole thing. Of course it’s easy to shrug off little slights when you aren’t part of a historically oppressed class. The same little slight has a much different and more damaging effect when it’s used to punch down rather than up.

    Privilege-blindness 101: being unwilling or unable to realize that people outside the straight/white/male norm are held to an entirely different set of standards than those of us who are the norm. A man who’s aggressive in the workplace is admired for his single-minded pursuit of success and promotion; an aggressive professional woman is a bitch trying to bring everyone else down. Men are admired for their hard work and achievements; women for their sexuality, despite their achievements. These double standards are glaringly visible to anyone paying attention, and aren’t going through life plugging their ears and singing Mary Had a Little Lamb in a loud voice.

    5. They are language police.
    Have you been arrested recently for using a naughty word? Oh me, oh my. You’d better get on to Amnesty about that.

    So you don’t have a real objection, alright. [YouTube link redacted.]

    Okay, here’s a better objection. If someone wants to go through life saying racist, misogynist, homophobic, and otherwise bigoted things, they should expect people to think they’re an asshole and call them out on their assholery. This isn’t being “language police,” it them using the same freedom of speech the “SJW”-haters think is so precious, as long as it only applies to bigots expressing their bigotry.

    To sum up: A hard lesson to learn in life is that there are times to talk and times to shut up and listen. I have had to learn it, so have many people. Most of us believe the views we hold and grew up holding are right. It’s why we hold them, after all, and it can easily make us angry when we’re told those views are wrong, misinformed, or flawed for whatever reasons, and we take the criticism as if we’re being personally devalued. Now we’re living at a time when the internet and social media is making traditionally unheard voices heard loud and clear, and it’s getting lots of angry pushback from those who’ve had centuries to get comfortable in the captain’s chair. There’s an opportunity here for Jasper to open himself up to others’ experiences of the world, and not only learn a thing or two, but come to the realization that this learning will not, in fact, lessen his or anyone else’s personal value, but enrich it.

  223. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    Well, since Martin has viciously and unconstitutionally stripped Jasper of his right to speak chosen to moderate a discussion that was, admittedly, going nowhere fast, I think I’ll leave it here. (To be honest, I was thinking of doing so depending on the content of that comment when it came anyway, because I definitely was irritable, and I’m not convinced he’s interested in understanding – only in “debunking” without first checking that there’s actually any bunk to de.)

    I’ll just add one quick point, and call it done.
    Sun Tzu quotes are overused in my opinion, but here’s a good one:
    If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
    Without an understanding of the points you’re arguing against, and a skeptical eye on your own thought processes, you’re not going to have much success unless you’re trying to convince people who also don’t understand those points. There’s no reason to resist gaining that understanding – if you’re right, understanding the claims and arguments gives you the power to defeat them consistently, and if you’re wrong, understanding gives you the opportunity to become right. Neither is anything to be feared. That’s why “shut up and listen” is not only sometimes, but often very good advice.

  224. oolon says

    Annoys me how anti-science many of these YT inspired anti-feminists are. They’ve seen one or two videos on micro-aggressions by the “Amazing” Atheist or Thunderf00t and think their gibbering “analysis” of them being “1st world problems” or “huurr hurrr feminists should worry about MACRO aggressions amirite fellas!” is valid. I’ve never seen them cite a single paper on the subject. Quite a few citations to browse through … https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=micro+aggressions&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

  225. Bleuski says

    It contained an excessive number of links, most to YouTube videos by notorious misogynists like SargonofAkkad. If you’re trying to convince people you’re labeling “SJWs” that you’re not the bad person they think you are, this tactic is, shall we say, counterproductive.

    Yes, let’s not label people, unless we’re labeling them misogynists or other such nonsense.

    Having watched the Atheist Experience for years, it is severely disappointed to see people here fall into the exact same trap of blatant straw manning and character assassination that atheists are always fighting against. I thought you were better than that.

  226. Jim Lahey says

    Olympian levels of hypocrisy and white knighting evident in this episode. With the rather obnoxious co-host lamenting that she doesn’t receive enough positive comments regarding her intellect. The caller Jasper gets referred to repeatedly as “honey” by her and yet she is the one who is reactionary! Here is a woman who seeks acknowledgement and equality but “practically wets” herself in pay negotiations [but that’s not her short coming it is society’s]. The caller is berated for using extreme examples when the co-host effortlessly leaps from unwelcome compliments to genital mutilation. I find it incomprehensible that the co-host was ever a legitimate victim of sexual harassment in the work place as her personality alone is, to say the least unprepossessing. Here is a woman who has replaced Islam with the Social Justice Warrior movement and somehow regards herself as smart? Thank you Jasper!

  227. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @oolon
    Of course, what you’re forgetting is that all of those citations are from what is objectively and reasonably referred to as “soft science”, and, as all sciencemans know, “soft” is just another word for “not actually.” Like, if you’ve got a soft, fluffy bunny, that means you’ve got a not really a fluffy bunny. True facts, that.

  228. Monocle Smile says

    @Bleuski
    Strawmanning? Character assassination? I see no dishonesty here. Linking to SargonofAkkad is the equivalent of linking to NephilimFree during a science discussion.

    At no point did anyone suggest not labeling people. Straw man, yourself.

  229. says

    Having watched the Atheist Experience for years, it is severely disappointed to see people here fall into the exact same trap of blatant straw manning and character assassination that atheists are always fighting against.

    You haven’t actually watched SargonofAkkad, have you? Because what I said about him was purely descriptive and accurate, as if you were wearing a blue shirt and I called it “blue.”

  230. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Bleuski
    I missed a memo. What’s wrong with labeling people? Especially when the labeling is accurate? Strawmanning and falsely labeling people – sure. That’s a bad thing. But labeling by itself? It’s a very useful and reasonable thing to do.

  231. Jasper says

    @Martin

    Martin if you’re going to claim someone is a misogynist and use that as an excuse to dismiss them, im just going to ask you to prove it. I mean Sargon has a wife, I have seen him have civil conversations with women, how can you say he hates women? that’s just ridiculous dude.
    Btw only one of those videos was from Sargon, and it was 1minute long, apparently your definition of “most” is 1/9. The rest of the links were to news stories, articles, a few feminist videos and a south park clip.

    The only reason I would be willing to grant for you deleting my comment was the use of the word “retarded” which I was applying to a video, I noticed you left the context out. So im wondering, could I redo the comment and leave out the word “retarded”? ill replace it with something less offensive.
    I do find it strange that you would draw the line at “ableist” language but allow people to call each other assholes and make direct insults, which I have not done.

    The part about my comment being too long is just ridiculous, I was responding to 3 people and the comment was going to be my last comment as I alluded to at the bottom, comparing that to the comment you replaced mine with, that is over 1700 words and is only responding to me. Its just an excuse to delete the comment and you know it.

    You will probably just delete this as well, but I just wanted to let you know that while you’re perfectly within your rights to censor in your space it still reflects on your character.

  232. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I mean Sargon has a wife,

    Otherwise known as “I can’t be racist because I have a black friend!”. Fallacious for the same reasons.

    So, I had no idea who this fucker is, and so I decided to watch a video of him and comment. I found this one talking about misogyny in gaming. Seems like a good video to use as an examplar.
    https:// w w w . youtube . com/watch?v=WhmOx0zThGg

    First, anyone who denigrates a man by using the word “beta man” is an assaht, and very probably has some deep-rooted sexism. Simply put, insulting someone’s masculinity by calling them beta is sexist and perpetuates sexist gender roles. There’s no way around it. And this guy is gleeful in his perpetuation of sexism in society.

    And then he says “mangina”. On second thought, I don’t need to listen to any more of this fucker. I’m pretty solidly convinced that most of the accusations against him are correct and justified.

  233. Jasper says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    So… he insulted feminist men and that means he hates women, the logic… it burns!
    At the very most you have demonstrated he hates male feminists, that in no way means he hates women.
    Seriously the only reason to label someone a misogynist is to dismiss them, its shaming language and it is attacking someones character rather than their arguments. Its at the point where people just laugh at it, the accusation of misogyny is so meaningless because it has been utterly diluted to the point where it is now a joke.

  234. says

    Fucking Matt is a mindwizard! Just laying down a definition is enough for him to mess with their minds :). I’d love to hear his thoughts on the drug war and what position he has on that. I’m bored with a lot of the atheist talk. I found feminism a refreshing subject.

  235. Monocle Smile says

    @Jasper
    You continue to prove our point. You don’t get it…misogyny for the most part isn’t about screaming incoherently at every woman one encounters and racking up assault charges. It’s much, much more insidious than that.
    Yes, part of the point of labeling someone a misogynist is to shame them…because they should be shamed. It is not a replacement for a counterargument, but there’s no need to counter “muh muh muh beta.”

    The fact that you don’t understand the distinctions between calling someone retarded as a pejorative and calling them an asshole is the epitome of your shortcomings. That’s your issue…you think your experience is the only experience.

  236. Jasper says

    @Monocle

    A misogynist is someone who hates women, Sargon does not hate women he has had pleasant conversations with women, he is married to a women, if he is a misogynist then give me an example of him hating women. Him calling feminists names is not hating women, feminist and women are not the same thing. Perhaps we have a different definition of misogyny, do you think it means someone who hates feminists?

    I never claimed calling someone a “beta” is an argument, I doubt Sargon would claim that either. Calling someone a misogynist is a replacement for a counter argument if you don’t actually give a counter argument. If you want to call someone a misogynist along with an argument, go ahead, but calling somebody names as a substitute for an argument is an ad hominem.

    I never actually called anyone “retarded” though, I called a video “retarded”. This is why I had a problem with Martin leaving out the context and simply saying I used ableist language. At the end of the day its just a word, the context of how the word is used is what matters.

  237. Monocle Smile says

    A misogynist is someone who hates women, Sargon does not hate women he has had pleasant conversations with women, he is married to a women,

    This doesn’t mean he doesn’t hate women. Seriously, this is like a dozen rounds of “not getting it.” Racists have pleasant conversations with minorities all the time and some even marry minorities. That doesn’t make them not racist, and anyone with two neurons to rub together should understand that civility during association is not related to hatred whatsoever. I mean, James Bond had pleasant conversations with most Bond villains at some point. It’s astounding how superficial your understanding of this topic is.

    As for the “beta” thing…what argument was presented? I haven’t heard anything resembling an argument from SargonofAkkad. I’ve heard lots of blather and gender-role nonsense, but nothing worth addressing. Would you address arguments from geocentrists? Would that be a productive use of time?

    I never actually called anyone “retarded” though, I called a video “retarded”. This is why I had a problem with Martin leaving out the context and simply saying I used ableist language. At the end of the day its just a word, the context of how the word is used is what matters

    Again with the privilege-blindness. See EL’s posts 244 and 245. How many things about you did he get right? Ever wonder how he was able to do this?

  238. Jasper says

    @Manocle

    Look, if someone hated black people, they wouldn’t be marrying a black person. Someone who hates women is someone like Elliot Rodgers, he hated women because they wouldn’t sleep with him, he had obvious contempt. All Sargon does is criticize and insult feminists, it really seems like your definition of misogynist is someone who hates feminists, not women.

    “As for the “beta” thing…what argument was presented? I haven’t heard anything resembling an argument from SargonofAkkad.


    In the video the argument that he was making is that the people in the video were constantly using weasel words and making vague statements, that was the argument. He also makes arguments to statements made in the video.

    “Would you address arguments from geocentrists? Would that be a productive use of time?

    Heres your problem, you think you’re right. You think you’re so right to the point where you wont even entertain the other side. You wont argue because you believe you have the right answer, and to even argue is a waste of time. As Aristotle said:
    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.

    Again with the privilege-blindness. See EL’s posts 244 and 245. How many things about you did he get right? Ever wonder how he was able to do this?

    So instead of addressing the argument that I made (that context matters), you instead say I have “privelege-blindness”. Arguments stand and fall on their own merits, the skin colour or gender of the person making the argument don’t matter. You cant just tell me im too privileged as an excuse to avoid the argument. Stop diverting away from the arguments.

    To answer EL’s posts:
    Im not going to start disclosing information about my race, sex or personal life, they’re irrelevant to the arguments. I will however answer his assumptions about my political leanings, because they’re semi-relevant.

    “In short, you seem to be following the standard libertarian motto: “I got mine, fuck you”.

    Depends what you mean, I am favor of individual freedom. But I assume you mean that I am anti-welfare, anti-healthcare etc. Well im not… so he was wrong.
    I am liberal.

  239. Monocle Smile says

    @Jasper
    When we describe SargonofAkkad as a misogynist, that’s diagnostic, not pejorative.
    When you called something “retarded,” it was pejorative, not diagnostic. That’s the context that matters, so you don’t even understand what you just said.

    Someone who hates women is someone like Elliot Rodgers, he hated women because they wouldn’t sleep with him, he had obvious contempt. All Sargon does is criticize and insult feminists, it really seems like your definition of misogynist is someone who hates feminists, not women.

    /facepalm
    You really aren’t even trying to get it, are you? You must be an inch tall, because literally everything is going over your head. In fact, it’s becoming difficult to understand how you continue to miss the point and get things horribly wrong. We’re 276 comments into this thread after an hour-long show, and there’s no sign that you even paid attention to anything that was said.

    I’m also now aware that you don’t know what an “argument” is. Butthurt commentary about “weasel words” and “vague statements” isn’t an argument. Dropping a “context matters” bit of shit isn’t an argument. An argument has premises and a conclusion. Not a single one of your posts thus far has contained an argument that I can identify.

    Oh, and there’s this:

    Heres your problem, you think you’re right. You think you’re so right to the point where you wont even entertain the other side. You wont argue because you believe you have the right answer, and to even argue is a waste of time. As Aristotle said:
    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”.

    That’s quite the impressive amount of psychological projection. I’m not obligated to divulge my thought process, so you have no clue whether or not I’m “entertaining” anything. Also, this isn’t a live conversation, so you REALLY don’t know.
    Secondly, you picked one of the worst possible examples against which to place this nonsense. Are you really suggesting that we take geocentrism seriously? YES, I think I’m right about heliocentrism to the point where I no longer have to entertain geocentrism.
    When it comes to feminism, I’m less confident, but not that much less, and this should be obvious. This is just more butthurt from you. Listen, buddy, I used to think feminism was a joke…and then I grew up. Having two sisters also helped. I realized that not everyone has my experience. You, on the other hand, apparently refuse to consider that anyone could feel differently than you about anything, based on your repeated “this isn’t a big deal, so women should stop whining” garbage. Are you going to take up EL’s challenge and make a fake female dating profile just to get a taste of what it’s like? I think we both know the answer to that.

  240. says

    It looks like Monocle Smile has done a perfectly fine job of unpacking and demolishing Jasper’s utter cluelessness, so there’s little I need to repeat. But I will, as a formality, reiterate that “Sargon is married” is no different than the racist at the bar pointing out his black friend. Good grief, look at the Christian Quiverfull movement. They’re all married… and yet they relegate their women to the status of uneducated, servile baby machines. It’s a community that espouses marriage and family, in a manner that is misogynist as fuck. Same as Islamist theocracies, where the systematized oppression of women is justified as protecting their “virtue.” To fail to understand that marriage and misogyny can coexist is to fail to understand human culture. (I’d say that an inability to make meaningful distinctions is what’s repeatedly causing problems for Jasper here. “Retarded” is an ableist slur, “asshole” isn’t.)

    It’s a moderator’s job to traffic-control comment threads and step in when things start going off the rails. And I’m perfectly okay if my character reflects that. If online anarchy is what you’re after, there’s always 8chan.

  241. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Martin
    ~feels neglected~ (j/k)

    @Jasper

    So… he insulted feminist men and that means he hates women, the logic… it burns!

    I explained my reasoning very carefully. It’s not because he disagrees with feminist men. It’s not because he insults feminist men. It’s because he is perpetuating sexist gender roles through his use of sexist slurs like “beta man” and “mangina”. These words simultaneously show that he values traditionally feminine traits less than traditionally masculine traits, and serve to reinforce the traditional cultural values that men must be strong and women must be weak. This is exactly the kind of shit that has to stop. Reasonable people do not ad hom a man by attacking his masculinity. Similarly, reasonable people do not attack a women for not being submissive enough, or passive enough, or “feminine enough”.

    PS: I don’t know offhand if the proper definition of “misogynist” is “one who hates women”. I will say that just from that little blurb, this guy has some deep-seated sexist biases, and he is an outspoken extreme sexist bigot. That is entirely compatible with loving his life and loving women. It’s totally possible to love someone whom you believe is inferior – mentally and physically – and that seems to be this guy to a T.

  242. Monocle Smile says

    @Martin
    Aw, shucks!
    On a side note, I continue to find nauseating irony in the implication that moderating an online forum with the intent of maintaining productive discussion reflects more poorly on one’s character than the murderous desire for online anarchy.

    @Alex Verbruggen
    We need a “like” button. I appreciate you inverting the trope of the whiny dictionary atheist who bitches that the show talks about things other than atheism in a vacuum. We’ve had an upswing in those recently.

  243. The Suit Is Not Black says

    I think it was unwarranted for them to be condescending to the caller when he referred to her as a guest. She is a guest host, is she not? He wasn’t inferring that she’s just a “general woman” without a name, as they were attempting to portray him as saying. He simply didn’t know her name. It wasn’t even printed on the screen. This is one of the reasons people get annoyed. This false sense of victimhood and the eagerness to take offense to a non-offensive statement.

  244. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @The Suit Is Not Black
    Yes. I agree on that isolated point. In isolation, it seemed like they needed a little more principle of charity. However, in the larger context of the show, and of the world at large, you are simply cherrypicking. Probably some confirmation bias too.

  245. Monocle Smile says

    @Suit
    As I said to Jasper in this very thread, that remark alone wasn’t an issue.
    In the context of Jasper’s whole call, it was the awful cherry on top. Also, her name was printed on the screen several times during the show. It’s not “eagerness” to take offense. It’s recognition of problems that loads of people shrug off as not being problems, which is itself a problem.

  246. Bleuski says

    @Monocle If you read the quote I posted before, it’s Martin telling Jasper that labeling people SJWs is “counterproductive.” He’s right-it’s essentially ad hominem level argumentation. The issue I had is that they turned right around and labeled Sargon a misogynist in the very next sentence. It’s hypocritical and doesn’t help to make the case that they’re wrong about the issue(s) at hand, regardless of whether the label is accurate(a person can hate women at still make accurate observations about feminism).

    As for whether Sargon actually is misogynistic, all you’ve done is beg the question. The burden of proof is on you if you’re going to claim that(I would think that if there’s one thing people would learn about from watching the Atheist Experience, it’s how the burden of proof works). Instead, you’ve just tried to shift the burden it onto others to prove that he’s not, with statements like “This doesn’t mean he doesn’t hate women.”

    I find it baffling that the same atheists that spend so much time picking apart the poor logic of theists can make the exact same mistakes when it comes to other topics.

  247. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    If you read the quote I posted before, it’s Martin telling Jasper that labeling people SJWs is “counterproductive.”

    No it’s not. You need to work on your reading comprehension if that’s what you took away from what Martin wrote.

    Quoting Martin:

    It contained an excessive number of links, most to YouTube videos by notorious misogynists like SargonofAkkad. If you’re trying to convince people you’re labeling “SJWs” that you’re not the bad person they think you are, this tactic is, shall we say, counterproductive.

    Labeling people as SJWs is not the counterproductive thing. I wear that label as a point of pride.

    The counterproductive thing is linking to asshats like Sargon, who are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, as a tactic to convince us that SJWs are bad, or something. In other words, the counterproductive thing is using extremely bad sources. It’s like linking to neo-Nazis to support the proposition that there’s an international Jewish banking conspiracy.

    PS: I explained very clearly in post 270 and 279 why Sargon is very clearly on the wrong side of this issue. Before asserting that Sargon is not a extreme sexist bigot, please read those posts and respond to that content.

  248. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    As I said to Jasper in this very thread, that remark alone wasn’t an issue.
    In the context of Jasper’s whole call, it was the awful cherry on top. Also, her name was printed on the screen several times during the show. It’s not “eagerness” to take offense. It’s recognition of problems that loads of people shrug off as not being problems, which is itself a problem.

    Meh, I know when I called in, I didn’t watch the screen. Because of the time-delay between the tv and the phone / skype, it would be too disconcerting. I bet most people who call in also don’t watch the live stream while they’re talking.

    On this particular issue, I think that the hosts probably jumped to conclusions too quickly. It would have been a good teaching moment IMHO, but I can also see only subconscious bias and no conscious bias, and I really think some more principle of charity on this particular issue was warranted. I have a minor pet peeve that I think our side is sometimes too quick to go on the offensive for people who really don’t understand our position and when a teaching moment might do wonders. I know it would have for me in my past. Maybe this is just me being too generous in interpretation. I know it’s a character flaw of mine. Still, it would have been a wonderful teaching moment for the audience IMHO, even if the caller was being disingenuous, and IIRC the tv / internet audience is their primary purpose – not the single person on the phone / skype.

    To be excessively clear: the caller was on the wrong side for more or less the whole call, and the hosts were on the right side for more or less the whole call. (“The caller” – I already forgot his name. It’s totally reasonable the caller forget the guest host’s name, which I also already forgot.)

    PS: I totally see the irony of me saying this just moments after ripping into that nevilleneville guy in the other threads. Whereas, that guy has already made very clear that he’s here in a charade in order to teach us a lesson, or something, rather than have a constructive dialog, and I believe that there is basically no possibility for a teaching moment for that person.

  249. Bleuski says

    The counterproductive thing is linking to asshats like Sargon, who are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, as a tactic to convince us that SJWs are bad, or something. In other words, the counterproductive thing is using extremely bad sources.

    Calling them “bad sources” is begging the question.

    I explained very clearly in post 270 and 279 why Sargon is very clearly on the wrong side of this issue. Before asserting that Sargon is not a extreme sexist bigot, please read those posts and respond to that content.

    First, anyone who denigrates a man by using the word “beta man” is an assaht, and very probably has some deep-rooted sexism. Simply put, insulting someone’s masculinity by calling them beta is sexist and perpetuates sexist gender roles. There’s no way around it. And this guy is gleeful in his perpetuation of sexism in society.

    When you use language like “very probably,” you need to realize that you are engaging in conjecture, and suggesting that “there’s no way around” something that is “probable” is contradictory. Frankly, what you’re presenting is just sloppy argumentation, at best.

    You’re just projecting your own usage and understanding of terms onto others.

    And then he says “mangina”. On second thought, I don’t need to listen to any more of this fucker. I’m pretty solidly convinced that most of the accusations against him are correct and justified.

    Again, your argument isn’t objective. It’s based on personal conjecture.

    It’s because he is perpetuating sexist gender roles through his use of sexist slurs like “beta man” and “mangina”. These words simultaneously show that he values traditionally feminine traits less than traditionally masculine traits, and serve to reinforce the traditional cultural values that men must be strong and women must be weak.

    That’s just a complete non-seqitur. You haven’t “clearly explained” anything.

  250. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Calling them “bad sources” is begging the question.

    No, I demonstrated that he is a bad source.

    When you use language like “very probably,” you need to realize that you are engaging in conjecture, and suggesting that “there’s no way around” something that is “probable” is contradictory. Frankly, what you’re presenting is just sloppy argumentation, at best.

    The use of the terms “beta man” and “mangina” perpetuate cultural sexist values. It’s like “nigger”. It should not be acceptable. Sargon can be perpetuating cultural sexist values maliciously or in ignorance. His actual motives are largely irrelevant. Regardless, either option means that he is a bad source on issues relating to sexism and culture, and that is why his opinion of SJWs mean exactly squat to me.

  251. Bleuski says

    No, I demonstrated that he is a bad source.

    What you’re doing is getting way ahead of yourself.

    The use of the terms “beta man” and “mangina” perpetuate cultural sexist values.

    That’s just a huge and rather vague claim of it’s own. It’s not really demonstrating anything.

    Sargon can be perpetuating cultural sexist values maliciously or in ignorance.

    Pure conjecture.

    Regardless, either option means that he is a bad source on issues relating to sexism and culture, and that is why his opinion of SJWs mean exactly squat to me.

    Ad hominem fallacy in a nutshell.

  252. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    You’re welcome to your denial of blatantly obvious facts. I see no point in further conversation with you.

  253. says

    I consider anyone who uses terms like “mangina” or “beta male” in any context other than mocking their stupidity as being not worthy of engagement on any level. For one thing, they’re not terms used by anyone who isn’t openly and aggressively misogynist, despite how they might think of themselves.

  254. Narf says

    “I’m not [racist/misogynistic/homophobic/transphobic], but …”

    … or an equivalent, lead-in disclaimer, basically means that you know that what you’re about to say makes you so.  Some people will do almost anything to delude themselves into thinking that they’re better than they are.

  255. Monocle Smile says

    @Bleuski
    LOL. Urban dictionary? Nice.
    The term “nigger” doesn’t explicitly communicate the message of “you are inferior because of your skin color,” but the way it is used both historically and in most modern circles certainly perpetuates that message.

  256. Bleuski says

    @ElightenmentLiberal Your lack of argument after I establish definitions and point out bad argumentation is noted.

    @Martin Wagner

    I consider anyone who uses terms like “mangina” or “beta male” in any context other than mocking their stupidity as being not worthy of engagement on any level.

    But that’s exactly how people are using it. The first is a term used to describe men that are unnecessarily self-depreciating of their own masculine gender identities just to accommodate the opinions of others(which is a stupid reason). It is deriding people that embrace the biases against their own gender identities.

    For one thing, they’re not terms used by anyone who isn’t openly and aggressively misogynist, despite how they might think of themselves.

    That is completely circular reasoning in the context of this discussion.

    @Narf That’s not analogous to the terms in question. Regardless, it’s just conjecture.

    @Monocle Smile You’re welcome to provide a better source.

  257. Monocle Smile says

    @Bleuski
    You DO realize that anyone can post whatever shit they want on urbandictionary, right?

    The first is a term used to describe men that are unnecessarily self-depreciating of their own masculine gender identities just to accommodate the opinions of others(which is a stupid reason). It is deriding people that embrace the biases against their own gender identities

    Sure, and it does this by using a term that accuses a man of having a vagina. That is quite literally perpetuating cultural sexist values. You just proved EL’s point. And for the record, recognizing one’s own privilege is neither being self-depreciating nor is it “white-knighting,” which is the term I believe you were just itching to use. I assume you agree with Jasper and don’t see the discussed examples of cultural sexism to be a “big deal,” correct? Then you’re part of the problem.

  258. Bleuski says

    @Monocle Smile

    You DO realize that anyone can post whatever shit they want on urbandictionary, right?

    Like I said, feel free to provide a better definition if you don’t agree with it.

    Sure, and it does this by using a term that accuses a man of having a vagina.

    Yes, I understand that the term evokes an equivocation between biological sex and gender identity.

    That is quite literally perpetuating cultural sexist values.

    I keep seeing this exact phrase used, and to be honest it just comes off as jargon-filled sophistry. Most people have no clue what “cultural sexist values” even means, or what “perpetuating” them would entail, much less how and why either would actually be “problematic.” Even the term “problematic” is vaguely defined.

    I’m assuming that you take issue with terminology in question because it “perpetuates” equivocation between biological sex and gender identity. Does it though? The singular issue that I take with this reasoning is that it is just seems patronizing in general. It seems to assume that language must conform to strictly controlled and predefined(while still ultimately subjective) usages, or else people won’t be able to understand them properly. Personally, I take this to be ignorant of how language actually works and develops, as it’s ultimately society and the individual that decide what words actually convey, and I find the attempts to control this process through social stigma to be rather orwellian.

    Please understand that I’m not concern-trolling or anything like that. I’m just pointing out that if you want to make a compelling case, you’re going to need to establish(and define) these sorts of premises first, before appealing to them. At this scope of discussion it’s still quite subjective.

    …nor is it “white-knighting,” which is the term I believe you were just itching to use.

    I would simply recommend that you not entertain such assumptions in your reasoning, as that’s a great way to not be objective(and wrong in this particular case).

    I assume you agree with Jasper and don’t see the discussed examples of cultural sexism to be a “big deal,” correct?

    I’m not going to search for any specific examples right now, but I think that “cultural sexism” is already such a broadly defined term that many of the instances that would fall under it aren’t actually problems, or are simply blown way out of proportion. When everything is sexist, the notion of sexism itself eventually just loses it’s bite. Many of these arguments just come down to an abuse of semantics and buzz-words.

  259. Monocle Smile says

    Please understand that I’m not concern-trolling or anything like that

    No, you’re just trolling. In your blurb about jargon (which is a misfire, as I’ve used zero jargon thus far), you invoke a nuclear option and seem to be saying that words have no meaning and you can just invent whatever shit you want in order to be dishonestly evasive. What’s wrong with you?

    I’m assuming that you take issue with terminology in question because it “perpetuates” equivocation between biological sex and gender identity. Does it though?

    No, I take issue because it assigns a negative connotation to possessing a vagina. This is obvious. Your attempt to obnoxiously obfuscate this by pretending that “man” and “vagina” somehow magically have no definitions deserves nothing more rigorous than a “fuck you,” because that is troll behavior. Your defense of SargonofAkkad boils down to “words don’t have concrete definitions, so Sargon could be saying anything,” which is the intellectual equivalent of taking a shit on the floor.

  260. Bleuski says

    In your blurb about jargon (which is a misfire, as I’ve used zero jargon thus far)…

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jargon : the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group.
    Google: Special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

    Phrases and terms like “cultural sexist values” and certain usages of “privilege” and “perpetuating” very much fall into the category of language promoted specifically by feminism.

    …you invoke a nuclear option and seem to be saying that words have no meaning and you can just invent whatever shit you want in order to be dishonestly evasive.

    That’s not at all what I said. I’m essentially just saying that people don’t get to tell others what they themselves meant just because they don’t share exact agreement on the usage. It’s projection.

    No, I take issue because it assigns a negative connotation to possessing a vagina. This is obvious.

    It doesn’t suggest that to me at all. The “obviousness” of your statement is again, just projection.

    Your attempt to obnoxiously obfuscate this by pretending that “man” and “vagina” somehow magically have no definitions deserves nothing more rigorous than a “fuck you,” because that is troll behavior. Your defense of SargonofAkkad boils down to “words don’t have concrete definitions, so Sargon could be saying anything,” which is the intellectual equivalent of taking a shit on the floor.

    My point is that you’re being overly pedantic and entirely uncharitable in your assumptions.

  261. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Bleuski

    I keep seeing this exact phrase used, and to be honest it just comes off as jargon-filled sophistry. Most people have no clue what “cultural sexist values” even means, or what “perpetuating” them would entail, much less how and why either would actually be “problematic.” Even the term “problematic” is vaguely defined.

    Huh? Ok, so there are jargony terms that get used in feminist discussions, sure. Kyriarchy is certainly not a word that I would expect the average person on the street to have a ready understanding of. But ‘cultural sexist values’? Sexist values that are perpetuated by the culture. Fucking simple. Perpetuate means to make a thing that is going keep going. Fucking simple. Problematic? Have you ever heard of a thing called a “problem”?
    I can understand and absolutely sympathise with failing to grasp the more complicated terms, and I can see why people might not understand why micro-aggressions are worthy of comment, but wilful ignorance for the sake of inventing an intellectual hurdle that’s simply too high for “most people” is just tedious.

  262. Jasper says

    @Monocle Smile

    When we describe SargonofAkkad as a misogynist, that’s diagnostic, not pejorative.
    When you called something “retarded,” it was pejorative, not diagnostic. That’s the context that matters, so you don’t even understand what you just said.

    Oh I see how this works, you say Sargon is a misogynist and he is because you define it to be so. You actually need to demonstrate he is a misogynist, stating that it is diagnostic is meaningless anyone could do that, there’s a little thing called the “burden of proof” where you need to demonstrate what you’re saying not merely assert it.

    I’m also now aware that you don’t know what an “argument” is. Butthurt commentary about “weasel words” and “vague statements” isn’t an argument. Dropping a “context matters” bit of shit isn’t an argument. An argument has premises and a conclusion. Not a single one of your posts thus far has contained an argument that I can identify.

    Now you’re deflecting again by questioning my use of the word argument. You’re wrong by the way.
    Dictionary.com has under its 4th definition:
    “a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point:
    This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.”

    The word “argument” has a broad definition but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter, address the points im making. Lets go through what you did.

    I said:

    I never actually called anyone “retarded” though, I called a video “retarded”. This is why I had a problem with Martin leaving out the context and simply saying I used ableist language. At the end of the day its just a word, the context of how the word is used is what matters.

    I make the point that the context of words is what matters, words arnt inherently racist or sexist, its the context that matters.

    You said:

    Again with the privilege-blindness. See EL’s posts 244 and 245. How many things about you did he get right? Ever wonder how he was able to do this?

    You ignore my point about context and just say im privelege-blind, labeling to avoid the arguments.

    I said:

    So instead of addressing the argument that I made (that context matters), you instead say I have “privelege-blindness”. Arguments stand and fall on their own merits, the skin colour or gender of the person making the argument don’t matter. You cant just tell me im too privileged as an excuse to avoid the argument. Stop diverting away from the arguments.

    I said you’re avoiding the arguments and I even responded to your point about me being privilege-blind. I made the point that my skin colour or sex is irrelevant, they dont impact the validity of the arguments. I make it very clear I want you to address the points im making instead of diverting.
    So how do you respond?
    You said:

    I’m also now aware that you don’t know what an “argument” is. Butthurt commentary about “weasel words” and “vague statements” isn’t an argument. Dropping a “context matters” bit of shit isn’t an argument. An argument has premises and a conclusion. Not a single one of your posts thus far has contained an argument that I can identify.

    In response to me telling you to stop avoiding the arguments, you avoid the arguments, yet again. You dont respond to my points, you instead play these little slimy tactics to avoid the arguments.

    That’s quite the impressive amount of psychological projection. I’m not obligated to divulge my thought process, so you have no clue whether or not I’m “entertaining” anything. Also, this isn’t a live conversation, so you REALLY don’t know.

    Not only do you not respond to arguments but you don’t even recognize them as arguments, while I obviously cant see into your mind when you sum up somebodies points as:

    “muh muh muh beta.”

    Its pretty clear you didn’t consider them, you just dismissed what he had to say off hand because you disagree. If someone is wrong then demonstrate it, but all you’re doing is using slimy diversion and dismissal tactics.

    Secondly, you picked one of the worst possible examples against which to place this nonsense. Are you really suggesting that we take geocentrism seriously? YES, I think I’m right about heliocentrism to the point where I no longer have to entertain geocentrism.”

    You cant just equate Sargon with a geogentristm, you must demonstrate that Sargon is just as unscientific as a geocentrist but thats not what you have done, you have merely asserted it as true. I have yet to see a factual take down on Sargon, all people do is call him a misogynist, racist, islamaphobe, whatever buzzword shaming language is fashionable. I’ll give an example, recently Steve Shives has outright said he wont debate Sargon, but ya know what he would do? call him a misogynist. You have to demonstrate what you’re saying, making further assertions doesnt mean anything.

    When it comes to feminism, I’m less confident, but not that much less, and this should be obvious. This is just more butthurt from you. Listen, buddy, I used to think feminism was a joke…and then I grew up. Having two sisters also helped. I realized that not everyone has my experience. You, on the other hand, apparently refuse to consider that anyone could feel differently than you about anything, based on your repeated “this isn’t a big deal, so women should stop whining” garbage.

    So you previously told me to check my privilege and repent of my original sin and now you’re giving me a conversion story, that’s fantastic “buddy”.
    I completely get other people have different experiences, im just pointing out they arnt oppressed and are complaining about trivial things.
    The reasons for feminism given on the show were:

    1. Online harassment.
    Mean words on the internet how awful, well I already demonstrated earlier on in this comment section that men actually get more harassment, so right there the claim isnt true.

    2. Street Harassment
    Mean words in public I guess that could get annoying. But still pretty trivial.

    3.Wage Gap
    Simply not accurate, the wage gap is fully explainable when you take into account womens life choices, Heina even acknowledges this but then said that women are still oppressed because they arnt responsible for there own choices. She shifts the blame to society, that women are forced to choose lower paying jobs because of social norms, essentially removing agency from women.

    So in summary of reasons why feminism is important atleast according to that episode of the Atheist Experience, 2 things that arnt even real problems and a trivial issue.
    Now compare that to the issues with men that I brought up.

    1. Court bias and the default siding with women in child custody.
    2. Genital integrity, stop cutting off pieces of male babies.
    3. Reproduction rights.
    We didn’t go into this on the show but it is basically that men have zero reproductive rights.
    When a man and a women have sex the man signs all of his parental rights away. The moment she gets pregnant he is now required to pay child support for 18 years of his life. If women have the right to abortion then men should have the same right in regards to there own finances.
    So we have real legal inequalities physically written down and codified in law vs uncomfortable interactions in public.

    Are you going to take up EL’s challenge and make a fake female dating profile just to get a taste of what it’s like? I think we both know the answer to that.

    I have already demonstrated that the claim that women get more harassment online is a lie, I get called names all the time, its called the internet. When girls get called names its harassment, when guys get called names its shit talk, the difference is in perception.

    @Martin wagner

    It looks like Monocle Smile has done a perfectly fine job of unpacking and demolishing Jasper’s utter cluelessness, so there’s little I need to repeat.

    Yes Martin, I was positively rekt.

    But I will, as a formality, reiterate that “Sargon is married” is no different than the racist at the bar pointing out his black friend. Good grief, look at the Christian Quiverfull movement. They’re all married… and yet they relegate their women to the status of uneducated, servile baby machines. It’s a community that espouses marriage and family, in a manner that is misogynist as fuck. Same as Islamist theocracies, where the systematized oppression of women is justified as protecting their “virtue.” To fail to understand that marriage and misogyny can coexist is to fail to understand human culture.

    So is Sargon relegating his wife to the status of an uneducated, servile baby machine? is he involved in the systematized oppression of women? or is Sargon a guy who is married, who has civil conversations with women and as far as everyone can tell treats women as equals?
    Not even Rational Wiki went as far as you did.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:Sargon_of_Akkad-youtube.

    Now Martin, demonstrate he is a misogynist, don’t merely assert it, demonstrate it.

    (I’d say that an inability to make meaningful distinctions is what’s repeatedly causing problems for Jasper here. “Retarded” is an ableist slur, “asshole” isn’t.)

    I think its a difference of opinion on what words should and shouldn’t be allowed to be said, but whatever you say.

    It’s a moderator’s job to traffic-control comment threads and step in when things start going off the rails. And I’m perfectly okay if my character reflects that. If online anarchy is what you’re after, there’s always 8chan.

    Off the rails… off… the… rails…
    Me using the word “retarded” to describe a video is going off the rails, what a joke.
    You’re character reflects someone that deleted my comment used a bunch of nonsense reasons the only possibly legitimate one being me using the word “retarded” removed it from its context and then categories the deleted comment as “angry”.
    Now considering the only objective objection to my comment is using the word “retarded” I have to ask the question: Why didn’t you just redact the word “retarded”?
    Instead you delete the comment and cherry pick a few things you wanted to respond to and now you paint yourself as the valiant traffic-cop and without you this comment section would devolve into the anarchy of 8chan, give me a break.
    Last question, if I remove the word retarded from the comment and put it up again would you allow it through? or would you delete it again?

  263. Narf says

    @Bleuski

    @Narf That’s not analogous to the terms in question. Regardless, it’s just conjecture.

    A list of categories that discriminate against disadvantaged groups, which includes misogyny, is not analogous to the term in question?  And you really don’t see how racism and misogyny are analogues?  Seriously, what is wrong with you?

    And no, the statement isn’t conjecture.  It’s an observation that is confirmed every time I hear or read someone using that or a similar lead-in.

  264. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Bleuski

    Even the term “problematic” is vaguely defined.

    You cannot be serious. You are not worth anyone’s time here. Begone.

    @Jasper
    tl;dr

  265. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To MS:

    No, I take issue because it assigns a negative connotation to possessing a vagina. This is obvious. Your attempt to obnoxiously obfuscate this by pretending that “man” and “vagina” somehow magically have no definitions deserves nothing more rigorous than a “fuck you,” because that is troll behavior. Your defense of SargonofAkkad boils down to “words don’t have concrete definitions, so Sargon could be saying anything,” which is the intellectual equivalent of taking a shit on the floor.

    I wish I said that earlier. I might not have been as clear as I could have been. This is quite clear. Well said.

  266. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Oh, and I saw this while skimming. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone adequately address this point yet, and so it probably deserves a reply, if only for future audience.

    Your attempt to obnoxiously obfuscate this by pretending that “man” and “vagina” somehow magically have no definitions deserves nothing more rigorous than a “fuck you,” because that is troll behavior. Your defense of SargonofAkkad boils down to “words don’t have concrete definitions, so Sargon could be saying anything,” which is the intellectual equivalent of taking a shit on the floor.

    My point is that you’re being overly pedantic and entirely uncharitable in your assumptions.

    No no. I clearly stated that Sargon might be doing this in knowledge with maliciousness, or in ignorance. Sargon might not intend to degrade women and reinforce certain stereotypes of men and women. However, that the clear and obvious effect of using those words, Sargon’s potential ignorance notwithstanding. His actual intent is largely irrelevant. Intent is not magic. His actions – speech – and the likely consequences of his speech are largely what matters. We have not been critiquing the person as much as we have been critiquing what he says and his effect on society.

    In particular, if he does so in ignorance, then it demonstrates a massive and pervading ignorance of the subjects at hand, which is why he would be a bad source to cite.

    Further, when Sargon is a public speaker, his intentions matter very little for the purposes of critiquing what he has said publicly. Sargon might still be a nice – but clueless – person (I’m not holding my breath), but it’s an objective fact that he is part of the problem and one of the primary speakers / leaders / advocates for the problem – whether he knows this or not.

    The principle of charity has a heavy presence in one-on-one discussions. However, the principle of charity carries far less force when critiquing a public speaker for his speech in public. Perhaps we might interpret it charitably, but we also have to consider the meaning as understood by the audience, and the audience may not be as charitable as us. In particular, for many people, this will have the cause of creating the association “having a vagina” with “undesirable” or “bad”. This creation and reinforcement of this association between “women” and “inferior” or “bad” is currently my primary complaint regarding Sargon, because I don’t feel like watching any more youtube videos of him when he has an obvious and glaring problem of this severity and obviousness.

    There is a saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  267. Jasper says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    I explained my reasoning very carefully. It’s not because he disagrees with feminist men. It’s not because he insults feminist men. It’s because he is perpetuating sexist gender roles through his use of sexist slurs like “beta man” and “mangina”. These words simultaneously show that he values traditionally feminine traits less than traditionally masculine traits, and serve to reinforce the traditional cultural values that men must be strong and women must be weak. This is exactly the kind of shit that has to stop. Reasonable people do not ad hom a man by attacking his masculinity. Similarly, reasonable people do not attack a women for not being submissive enough, or passive enough, or “feminine enough”.

    You don’t get to just interpret what he is saying and then extrapolate that to mean he is a misogynist. At best you can show that Sargon doesn’t like male feminists, but even so he is willing to have civil conversations with them.
    “A Conversation with a Male Feminist”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y57borHqmeU
    But oh no! now im linking to a misogynist.

    PS: I don’t know offhand if the proper definition of “misogynist” is “one who hates women”. I will say that just from that little blurb, this guy has some deep-seated sexist biases, and he is an outspoken extreme sexist bigot. That is entirely compatible with loving his life and loving women. It’s totally possible to love someone whom you believe is inferior – mentally and physically – and that seems to be this guy to a

    Well that’s why I asked for you guys to define misogyny because it is commonly used to mean someone who hates women and it is very clear Sargon doesn’t hate women. Or atleast you cant tell if he does. Perhaps your definition of misogyny is so washed out that it is meaningless, I don’t know.

    By the way the video I linked to that was from SargonofAkkads channel didn’t even have him speaking in it. It was a 1minute song called “Everything is Sexist” and was performed by another youtuber.

    Look how ridiculous this all is, arguing over whether someone is a misogynist or not, this is what feminist argumentation looks like. You arnt debating the points instead you’re arguing about the mans character and then you want to use that as a reason to dismiss his points. How a fucking joke.

    @Bleuski

    I never actually started labeling people in this discussion as SJW’s that’s just another example of Martin lying and misrepresenting me. I did take a shot at defining an SJW, but I never slapped the label on anyone in this discussion. Also if I ever do label someone as I just did before when I said “this is what feminist argumentation looks like” labeling them as feminists it is not an excuse to dismiss, I said it to make the point that feminists don’t argue the points but instead go after peoples character.

    When EnlightenmentLiberal is labeling Sargon as a misogynist it is in an attempt to dismiss his arguments on that basis. That is the very definition of an ad hom, attacking someones character rather than the arguments.

  268. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Jasper

    3.Wage Gap
    Simply not accurate, the wage gap is fully explainable when you take into account womens life choices

    Consad, right? Or is there another study that doesn’t say what you claim it says? Or… are you just asserting this without even having bothered to read any studies ‘cuz your oh-so-skeptical heroes tell you so?
    What you get, with the Consad study at least, is a specific narrowing of the wage gap issue down to exact equivalence – same job, same hours, etc. It takes issues like women simply being considered less employable or less worthy of promotion despite equal qualifications and performance, and focuses specifically on the “equal pay for equal work” aspect of the wage gap, which is then interpreted by the intellectually lazy, dishonest and/or gullible as “women’s choices.” Still leaves a gap of something like 3-8% if I’m remembering correctly. Of course, whenever this is pointed out, we are told that this gap is simply explained by “other factors.” What other factors? No fucking clue. Other factors that weren’t considered in this previously utterly conclusive evidence? Dunno. They come in a box, I think.

    Heina even acknowledges this but then said that women are still oppressed because they arnt responsible for there own choices. She shifts the blame to society, that women are forced to choose lower paying jobs because of social norms, essentially removing agency from women.

    So there’s this thing called society. I don’t know if you’ve heard of it? It was only recently invented, it’s ok if you haven’t. Now, society teaches us how we’re supposed to behave, how we’re supposed to talk, what we’re supposed to want in a lot of cases. It’s not like mind control – people still have the ability to decide to do other things if they don’t like the things that society says they should like – but it does exert pressure. You’ve heard of “peer pressure” right? That’s a kind of social pressure. You can use that, and other kinds of social pressure to influence people’s decisions, make them doubt themselves. If you put someone in a group of people who’re working for you, and give them a question with a simple answer, and have the people working for you give the obviously wrong answer, people will often give the wrong answer too – even though the right answer is the most obvious to them. The presence of other people giving the wrong answer makes them doubt themselves, influences their decision. Do you understand?
    Humans? We’re not little objectivist islands floating in silent seas of pure rationality. We are influenced very strongly by our environment, and even if we’re putting the effort in to try to define ourselves according to our own personal desires rather than giving in entire to the environment, we’re still not totally free to do and be what we want, because the environment lashes out at that. As an entirely random example not designed specifically because you might actually be willing to try to empathise with it by any means; have you ever seen the way that people behave in particularly religious parts of the world when someone comes out or is outed as an atheist? They scream! They shout! Sometimes they even murder them! Of course, it’s not always quite that bad – sometimes they’re just shunned a bit, maybe they don’t get hired as often, or they don’t get promoted quite as easily, or they simply don’t keep jobs because they “don’t really fit in here.” Maybe people just quietly judge them, but there’s still a sense of the other about them. That all reminds me of something, but I just can’t quite work it out for some strange reason… can you?

    Now compare that to the issues with men that I brought up.
    1. Court bias and the default siding with women in child custody.

    Men get custody of children the majority of the time when they try to get it, except if they’re unfit parents… and even then, they get it when they demonstrate fitness. And, just out of curiosity, why do you think there might be a default to siding with women there? What do you think that might be about? Think it through, maybe? There must be some logic to it.

    2. Genital integrity, stop cutting off pieces of male babies.
    3. Reproduction rights.

    Both of which feminists support. (Unless by reproduction rights, you mean the right to force an unwilling woman to have an abortion, ‘cuz that doesn’t work – not your body, see? If you’re after post-conception reproductive rights, campaign for parental surrender rights and adequate state-funded child support provisions.)

    I would pick apart that whole thing, but I’m tired and I want to shoot some electronic people before I go to bed, so I’m not gonna.

  269. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @me

    which is then interpreted by the intellectually lazy, dishonest and/or gullible as “women’s choices.”

    + being accounted for.

  270. Monocle Smile says

    @Athywren
    The “women’s choices” thing is just more of the same privilege-blindness we’ve come to expect from Jasper. EL is probably right on the money and Jasper is a straight white male, so he’s never been pressured or judged by society for any of the choices he’s made in a way that made him insecure to be a straight white male.
    Also, Jasper’s insistence that “having civil conversations” makes one free of prejudice and hatred gives me the impression that he’s got the mind of a child and isn’t worth engaging much longer.

  271. says

    Ah, Jasper. I could, among the many life decisions available to me, respond in detail your histrionics. Or I could just offer snarky memes.

    But concerning your butthurt over why your comment was edited and what informs our moderating choices here, I really have so few fucks to give I’ve gone into fucks debt. No one here has to justify our moderating decisions, though we’re not averse to explaining them, as a courtesy. Think they’re a joke? Fine, whatevs. In my assessment, yeah, you were steering the discussion off the rails and are continuing to do so, as you’ve entered that stage of an ongoing argument where it’s all just about winning and soothing wounds to your ego. Here’s an example:
    1. Many people here point out SargonofAkkad is misogynist, based on the content of his videos, such as his attitude and language.
    2. Jasper angrily objects, blah blah dictionary blah blah definitions blah he can’t hate women he’s married blah blah.
    3. I point out examples of deeply misogynist societies and cultures that operate under the guise of being pro-woman, demonstrating that merely being married doesn’t disappear someone’s misogyny.
    4. Blah blah Sargon isn’t exactly the same as them so you’re wrong blah blah I take everything literally blah blah demonstrate blah.
    Yeah, it just gets tedious after a while. Sealioning isn’t arguing. It’s just “I must keep this going because unless I have the last word all is lost!

    If you want to lawyer-to-death the usage of certain words, contexts, etc., you can do that all you please, but at the end of the day, if we say we don’t like ableist slurs here, that’s the end of it, really. I won’t force the issue, certainly, but I’d suggest that rather than trying to repost things or continue on the way you’re going, you might wish to consider taking a breath, going outside, taking a walk in the park, having an ice cream, hugging a kitten, whatever. You really are much too invested in all this right now, and in a way that isn’t healthy or rational.

  272. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Because I can never help myself.
    Quoting Jasper:

    When EnlightenmentLiberal is labeling Sargon as a misogynist it is in an attempt to dismiss his arguments on that basis. That is the very definition of an ad hom, attacking someones character rather than the arguments.

    An ad hom is an implied or explicit argument of the form “X is wrong because he’s Y”, where Y is unrelated to the topic. For example, “Sargon is wrong about women because he’s ugly and fat”: Ad hom. An ad hom has to be a non-sequitur. Otherwise it’s not an ad hom. For example, if I dismiss out of hand the arguments of a creationist when talking about evolution and biology, and I give the justification “because he’s a creationist”, then that’s not ad hom.

    Further, I’m not really dismissing Sargon’s arguments. That’s putting the wrong phrasing on it. What I’m doing is not ad hom because I’m not rejecting his arguments. I don’t even know what his arguments are! I’m simply stating that I’m not going to watch any more of his videos. No ad hom there. It’s not a denial of his arguments. It’s simply an up-front refusal to engage with his videos and arguments. Maybe his arguments are brilliant – I’ll probably never know. tl;dr there’s a difference between rejecting arguments that have been made, vs refusing to read / watch some external material on the basis that I find the source to be detestable.

    Finally, I merely noted that if you want to go about convincing us social justice warriors that we’re wrong about something, I suggest that you do not link to someone that gleefully throws around insult-terms like “beta man” and “mangina”. No ad hom there either. Just a polite suggestion on how to better reach your audience next time.

    But of course, on to the core isssues. I don’t care if Sargon is a misogynist. I don’t care about the petty bickering over the meaning of the word “misogynist”. Not important. Don’t care. I will say that Sargon is explicitly and aggressively sexist in his demeanor, tone, and choice of language. Gleefully so. Unrepentantly so. This kind of person – whether malicious or not – is the problem that I’m fighting. He’s apparently the spokesperson for the group of people that I’m fighting.

    Maybe you think that the use of insult-words like “mangina” and “beta man” are not worthy of comment. That’s nice. Maybe you think that I’m greatly overplaying the effects that words like this have on culture and the cause-and-effect relationship that this will have on the average behavior towards men vs women. You’re wrong, and right now you are not in a position to convince me. Maybe if you hadn’t shat away all of your initial good-will you might have had a chance, but right now I have decided to write you off as a crank. Oh – I totally see what’s coming. “Closed-minded”. “Dogmatic”. “Not willing to listen”. Sorry dude. I have no more duty to constantly expose myself to asshats like yourself than you do to constantly listen to the drivel that is young earth creationism on the small possibility that maybe one of them has the evidence to show that they’re right. After a time, you collect enough evidence that you mostly don’t bother anymore. It’s part of being a functioning human being. See:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis
    So, I’ve dismissed you. I now consider you as a person with no good ideas on this topic. Or at least that approximation is close enough that I believe that it’s not worth my time engaging with you any further, and I am not going to expend any serious mental energy on my part.

    PS: Of course, I might engage with you further just out of fun. I’m pretty masochistic like that. However, consider this fair warning that I’m probably not actually going to take seriously anything further that you say on this topic.

    Good luck and have fun!

  273. Athywren - Frustration Familiarity Panda says

    @Monocle Smile
    It certainly is a good example of privilege-blindness, but I also think it’s a good example of a very easy way to get someone who at least appears to identify as a skeptic to see where they’re going wrong. I mean, every “the wage gap don’t real” study I’ve read to date has come down to “small elements of the wage gap are smaller than the entire wage gap but still greater than zero” when you actually read them, so it seems like that should be a very easy way to get through to anyone who’s genuinely interested in the facts. The Consad study certainly does cut out a number of important, non-choice, causative factors in the larger wage gap, but it also very handily cuts out the parts related to choice. Whether you believe that these choices are made in an entirely free manner or recognise that social pressures have an influence over a huge number of them, it’s pretty well undeniable that the study accounts for them, and so they cannot be responsible for the remaining gap.
    So, while I agree that Jasper really isn’t worth engaging with at this point, I think it’s worth believing the unbelievable for a few minutes and assuming that he’s willing to put in the required skepticking to spot the obvious.
    I will eat my hat if that happens, of course, but that doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to delude myself for a little while on that topic.

    On the topic of civility, I took a first aid course a couple of months back and was having a really interesting, engaging and civil conversation with a guy in the group. It was going really way until, “of course, the white civilisations have always been the most stable, peaceful and just – it’s only been when the blacks interbreed with us that things go badly”….
    I mean… it can’t have been prejudice, right? He was civil! 😮
    (Man, did that midweek get looooong.)

  274. Jasper says

    @Martin Wagner
    Very good Martin, very good.
    Perfectly happy to end the conversation on that note.

    @EnlightenmentLiberal

    First, anyone who denigrates a man by using the word “beta man” is an assaht, and very probably has some deep-rooted sexism. Simply put, insulting someone’s masculinity by calling them beta is sexist and perpetuates sexist gender roles. There’s no way around it.

    The counterproductive thing is linking to asshats like Sargon, who are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, as a tactic to convince us that SJWs are bad, or something. In other words, the counterproductive thing is using extremely bad sources. It’s like linking to neo-Nazis to support the proposition that there’s an international Jewish banking conspiracy.

    At no point do you demonstrate that he is “on the wrong side” or that he is as unreliable as a “neo-Nazis” you just assert he is sexist based on your interpretation and then use that character judgement as your basis to dismiss him as a “bad source”.

    @Athywren – Frustration Familiarity Panda
    Ya know what, I am perfectly happy for us to just agree that men don’t have equal rights to women, perfectly fine to leave it there. The arguments are winding down and im not going to get into a another one.

    Well gents this has been a nice chat, but alas it is time for me to “shut up and listen”. After listening to your conversion stories I now realize I need to prostrate myself before feminism and repent of my sins.

    Cya, it was a privilege.