This one doesn’t seem to be the product of a conspiracy of morons, though.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This one doesn’t seem to be the product of a conspiracy of morons, though.
If they start asking if you talk to your DNA, though, run.
Glen Davidson
Looks awesome
That looks really, really good.
I’ll definitely go see that.
Also, too: Greta totally rocks that nail polish/ black&white dress/ fantastic necklace look.
Plus I love what she says. :)
Double-check.
I am so grateful that Bad To The Bone was not played in the background.
Yes, for the preview of that other, ahem, documentary, you know when that fool dressed as Angus Young, that was the song used.
Guess where I forgot to close the tag.
*snerk!*
Oh, this made me giggle!
“All I am doing is speaking. All I amdoing is saying what I think.. And I am saying it bluntly and honestly”
And doesn’t that just scare the bejesus out of the religious and the right wingers.
I am SOOO looking forward to hearing PZ speak at the Global Atheist Covention in Melbourne.
Keep the irrational and religious quaking in their boots, PZ!
A conspiracy of morons. Makes sense. Like a murder of lawyers. Or a shitton of MRAs.
A conspiracy of morons. Now I know what to call my coworkers!
Awesomeness!
I love it already! So when is it coming out, and where?
This also neatly explains where most “conspiracy theories” come from!
Tee hee Thanks for the soft core porn!
After the clip, the list of clips suggested by YouTube are mostly from the movie The Scarlet Letter, including the love scene. Demi Moore yum.
Anyone care to enlighten the ignorant here?
It looks like it it’s going to be a pretty great documentary, and I like many of the people in it a great deal, but…
There are a lot of white men in the trailer, two women, and no people of color. I hope it’s just the trailer that’s like that.
Anybody know who is making it and if we can provide feedback before it’s released (if possible)?
A “conspiracy of morons”? Is that like a “murder of crows” or a “sleuth of bears”? What would the collective noun for atheists be? Hmm, well conspiracy theories are moronic so that makes sense. A dead body would attract crows, so OK there. And if you have ever watched a bear in a garbage dump, sleuthing does come to mind. My first idea for Atheists was a “shit disturb”…any others?
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
“damnation” of atheists
“shrill” of atheists
“Conspiracy of morons”…that’s another lol for today!
Ba ha ha! JT (?) “misconceptions…”we eat babies”…um, that one’s true” :D
I can’t wait to see the whole thing. Thanks!
OMGs! Greta “sometimes anger is a sign that there is something wrong with the world!”
QFFT!!!
Um. Did anyone else notice the speakers in the video were almost exclusively dressed in (mostly) black? Was this on purpose? Or do we atheists have an inherent style preference?
If so I was much more atheist when I was between 15 and 23 years old.
@Duckbilled Platypus
Well, our Satan-worshipping robes went out of fashion a long time ago, but we still like the color.
Maybe none of them have an inherent need to be as bright and colorful as possible to cover up the fact they’re ultimately unhappy with themselves.
…Nah, I’m bullshitting. Just a coincidence, I’ll bet.
a “handbasket” of atheists?
molly7
+1
I am absolutely convinced that uniting under the banner of “atheism” is the wrong approach.
Yeah I get it… we want the word to lose its negative connotation. Got it. But at what cost? You lump yourself in the same category as a million other idiots and whackos who don’t happen to believe in god. By uniting under this banner, you have allowed theists to frame the discussion. You have allowed theists to effectively determine how you will identify yourself.
I advocate only reason. I oppose faith in any form. That right there tells you exactly what I believe and what I’m about. “Atheist” tells you almost zero about me. It just tells you what I am not.
The documentary looks good. Really good. But I think the idea of waving the “atheist” flag around is a mistake.
kacyray #28
Your concern is noted.
I also noticed the overwhelming white dudeliness of it. Hope the whole documentary isn’t that way.
On a more positive note, what a badass quote from Greta Christina to end on.
a “mistake” of atheists
a “banner” of atheists
a “lump” of atheists
Mostly filmed at Skepticon IV. I wonder if I made the final cut.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You don’t correct and change centuries of bigotry, fear and hatred by remaining silent or making every attempt to bubble wrap “the A word”. When people do this, that is allowing theists to frame every discussion.
I’m not out to have a discussion with every theist on the planet. What I am out to do is to confront people with their bigotry, to make them see how bad their attitude and behaviour happens to be.
Does being open about being an atheist tell people all about me? Nope. It does, however, make the point that I’m an atheist and I’m damn sick and tired of being viewed as a sick, evil, not fully human being simply because I don’t share a belief with them.
The more people who are out in regard to their atheism, the better, because that makes us visible*, it makes it difficult to ignore us and the more normalized and socially acceptable we will be. You won’t effect that change by pandering to theists or tiptoeing about. Theists seriously need to get over the idea that they have the right to not be offended.
You can be quiet all you like, that will change nothing. Me, I’ll stick with being an out gnu atheist.
*I regularly wear various atheist Tees, have my scarlet A pin, all that. One day, in town, I had a woman happily approach me in the bookstore because I was wearing my ‘Atheists doing good without god/scarlet A’ shirt. We had a really nice talk and she left feeling a lot better for knowing she was not alone. I live in effing North Dakota. Not a lot of out atheists here. Since that time, it’s happened several more times with different people. It’s a good thing, ya know.
Who’s that pudgy, bearded fellow, and why’s he hanging out in an alley ? Oh, I get it, he was waiting for his black market baby connection because he’s hosting the baby roast later ?
Oh, sorry, I let it slip. Damn.
Well, whatever you do, don’t take Dawkins with you to the screening. Remember what happened last time?
Sorry, but atheists deserve to be scorned and reviled. They hate freedom and the values good folks cherish. Although a tiny minority, they want to impose their amoral nihilism and secular totalitarianism upon us all. I see distinct parallels between the “A” sign used here and the swastika used by the Nazis.
We, as a society, are never going to allow ourselves to be destroyed by atheisto-fascists. We will fight to preserve the natural rights afforded to us by the Creator. We will oppose you just as we opposed godless tyrants like Nero and Napoleon.
@33 – There’s nothing “staying quiet” about me, I assure you. My point is that there are many things that I (and presumably you) aren’t. And the proponents of those bad ideas generally use pejorative labels for those who dissent.
So of all the things we are NOT, why would anyone choose to identify themselves primarily as “not [this]”?
There’s only one possible answer… it’s because that person is allowing theists to frame the discussion. They are handing that control over to theists.
Think about it… if there were no theists, would you identify yourself as “not [something]”?
If all of the world held a wide array of different beliefs, none of which involved supernatural beings, would you identify yourself primarily as an atheist? Of course not! You are only doing so – confessedly – as a *response to theists*.
In short… you’ve allowed them to define you. You’ve accepted their terms. You’ve capitulated to them the authority to frame the argument as “You’re either [this] or you’re [not this]” and assumed an entire identity as [not this].
I say to hell with that. They don’t get to define me in their terms.
I’m not a theist, so to theists, I’m an atheist.
I’m not a Scientologist, so to Scientologists, I’m a “Suppresive Person”
I’m not an Objectivist, so to a Randroid, I’m a Subjectivist
I’m not a racist, so to a Klansman I might be called a “Nigger-lover”
I’m not a feminist, so a feminist would probably call me a “misogynist”.
I’m not a homophobe, so to a member of the WBC I am a “fag” or “fag enabler” (take your pick)
There’s no end to the number of groups who each have their own little pejorative terms for people who are . Which of these terms should I define myself as? Should I let one of them choose it for me? Or should I set those terms for myself?
Am I [not this group] or am I [whatever I am]?
As for me – I will decide how I’m identified. I’m not going to let someone else do it for me. Am I an atheist? Sure I am. But that’s not what defines me or my beliefs.
sixdays
Trite.
I give it a 3.5
sixdays:
Boring, Cupcake, boring. We expect a much better class of trolls here.
kacyray
Do you live alone in the woods, somewhere?
The screening comment is because PZ signed up to see a screening of Expelled, which interviewed scientists under false pretenses and misrepresented their opinions. When PZ showed up, the producer had arranged to deny him entrance, but the security guards (!) let in his guest, ***Richard MF Dawkins***.
That is, Expelled producers interviewed scientists such as Prof. Myers and Prof. Dawkins. It was extremely small-minded and mean-spirited to bar from a screening someone who had consented to be interviewed and was in the movie. The irony of their not recognizing Prof. Dawkins propelled the story to the New York Times among other major newspapers. Consequently people knew of the movie when people began pointing out that they had used other people’s music without licensing it and had plagiarized a science video based on research.
Sixdays, very funny Poe! Just imagine: there really are people who think like that.
Sixdays, I just watched a documentary about Hitler’s life and rise to power. He took the Swastika from a similar cross on a tombstone in a Catholic monastery.
You may not take me seriously, but I take the threat posed by militant atheism very seriously indeed. I just hope that the Government also is keeping a close watch on you lot. I fully support RFID tagging if it helps control your activities.
As far as I am concerned, PZ Myers is Public Enemy No.1 now that Osama bin Ladin is gone.
First of all, we don’t hate “freedom.” Actually, “freedom” is a morally neutral concept, depending on what you want the freedom to do. But as a buzzword, for people who don’t think very deeply, it sounds great, doesn’t it?
We are not nihilists, assuming you know what the word even means, and as for morality, are you really going to claim superiority over us in that department because you follow the rules in a book that condones slavery, beating of slaves, genocide, dashing babies against rocks, and burning animals?
As for the swastika, gosh, I think it rather resembles a cross more than the letter “A.”
@37 kacyray
Wait, why aren’t you a feminist? I’m one myself so I’m not going to call you a misogynist unless you actually do/say misogynist things. So I -really- dislike you lumping in feminists with all those other wakaloon belief systems.
Feminists believe in equal rights for both genders and misogyny hurts men as well as women. What is at all similar between that and the KKK?
More on topic, the video is beautifully produced, I share a similar concern with the others about all the speakers being shown so far as white and only a tiny amount being women. Hopefully the finished product wont be as whitewashed.
Guess you can’t be happy unless you are hating someone sixdays.
And here I thought initially that it was a Poe, all that ironic stuff about atheism being the thing that is restricting rights, unlike say what the religious right is trying to do to women in the USA.
sixdays #45
That one was only worth 1.5
(you understand I’m marking out of 42)
Yes, the government has been watching me closely ever since that speeding ticket I got in 1983. You never know when I’m going to commit yet another heinous crime. The surveillance is bound to pay off any day now.
I would feel sorry for any government official keeping tabs on me. He’s be bored to the point of insanity.
You need to inform the FBI of this. They’re still wasting their time on petty murderers and bank robbers and shit.
Jeepus. Your new society sounds charming.
sixdays*:
*yawn*
Unimaginative drivel, not worth more than a D+.
*Speaking of, it’s Sunday. Shouldn’t you be resting somewhere instead of acting like a jackass on the internet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
sixdays:
A ha ha ha ha haaa haa!
*wipes tear*
Yes, dear, run to your authoritarian daddy stand-in. I’m sure the government is totes concerned with a bunch of law-abiding citizens– citizens that hold Constitutionally protected religious views*, to boot.
feralboy:
I know, right? Once a month, I get a nice letter from the county sheriffs asking me if I’d pay that $75 that I owe for parking my car on the street with an expired inspection sticker.
I AM A CRIMINAL MASTERMIND! MWAH HA HA HA!
*Well, if you’re American. Your results may vary.
This feminist is going to call you a grade A fucking moron for thinking that’s what feminists do.
That said, misogynists tend to paint feminists as equivalent to wackaloon hate groups. I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence that you’re adopting some of the same speech patterns that misogynists use though.
Allow me to suggest a correction to your list to make it more consistent: “I’m not a misogynist, so MRAs would probably call me a mangina.”
There is an interesting point hidden in all of this, actually. Feminism wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the patriarchy. Essentially feminism is defined by patriarchy and opposition to sexist patriarchal values and norms. Does that mean that feminism is illegitimate or that feminism is failing to self-define? No. Once equality is achieved, “feminism” will be a quaint historical notion, kind of like how we now regard “abolitionism”. Likewise, once religious values don’t dominate every nook and cranny of society, “atheist” will lose its punch as a label and people won’t bother much with it. Until then, however, it’s a useful and worthy effort to identify as an atheist and make your presence known.
So, what makes you not a feminist? You don’t believe in equal pay for work of equal value? You don’t want women to vote? I’m agog at the chance to hear your wisdom about exactly which rights we should deny people on account of their sex.
sixdays of indeterminate length since the sun wasn’t invented until day three or something:
Maybe you should get your eyes checked.
Also, Hitler wasn’t an atheist, he was an Austrian Catholic.
Markita:
My money’s on kacy claiming to be an “equalist” or some equivalent dumbshit term.
@molly7
a “handbasket” of atheists. i really did laugh out loud. superb!
Audley:
I’ll put my money with yours. Can’t be havin’ with all those “wackaloons”, ya know. Silly wimmins, expecting to be treated like full human beings.
Very cool. Can’t wait to see this one.
I’m not going to get into feminism, particularly since there’s a clear undertone that nothing I say will be met with anything other than hostility.
@57 Good of you to give me the intellectual benefit of the doubt. And I do appreciate you alerting me right off the bat who to ignore.
@55 What makes me not a feminist is that I’m not a feminist. How clever of you to pull out the condescending “Oh, if you’re not one of ME, then I am sure I already know what you are” from the Christian Fundamentalist bag of tricks. I see a pretty entertaining irony in the fact that this post was about a documentary whose message is “People who don’t share your particular belief are not second class citizens, they are not evil, and they might actually be right.” Apparently that message was lost on you.
Good lord, is this crowd of commenters seriously as tribal as the one over there at Dispatches? I didn’t think that was possible.
I wonder if there’s a single forum here at “Free Thought Blogs” that actually has readers who appreciate free thought. You people are as tribal, presumptuous, condescending, and smug as it gets. At least that goes for the few of you who immediately presume I’m an idiot while simultaneously ignoring that point I was making to begin with. I commented in order to invoke an exchange of ideas, and this is how you respond? What is wrong with you people?
kacyray – ok, I’ll bite. In what way are you not a feminist? It would be interesting to see if you’re not a fake strawman feminist, or not an actual one.
molly7 – total win. Handbasket of atheists it is, in my book.
Could someone please tell Aronra to invest in a suit. This documentary is supposed to teach people that Atheists are normal everyday people. That image is hard to pull off, when you have a large man standing in a back alley, dressed like he’s on his way to a graveyard to sacrifice a goat!
Quick. Someone reedit this trailer immediately. Silverman says at 1:29 that “ignorance is something that is propagated by science.” I’m quite sure he misspoke and no one caught it.
Oh come on Kacy. Don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think about feminism. I’ll listen. Why did you ignore my post, anyway? I DID address what you said, and engaged in what seemed to me like an “exchange of ideas.” It’s just that I judged your ideas to be lacking. Were you taken aback by that? How sad for you.
Yes, everyone knows normal everyday people have no particular likes or dislikes when it comes to how they dress. We can’t have individual taste, oh no!
You’re not amazing at all, Rando. You seem to be rather the opposite.
robinfriedrich
silence
kacyray: Your decision to eschew the mantle of atheism is yours to make. However, it isn’t a particularly thought-provoking position.
I’m going to do my damnedest to make this become common parlance.
If this actually works, future generations of etymologists will add this to the list of reasons to look back at the 21st century and mutter “wise-asses”
kacyray, and your your litany of what you are and are not was not presumptuous, condescending and smug ?
So, you are not a racist, a homophobe or a feminist, eh?
I’m not a misanthropist, a KKK clansman nor a kacyray!
I’m almost as clever as kacyray, though, pretending to be reasonable and simply looking to engage and all that.
Amazing rando: I thought Aronra’s presence on the video was perfect. Why should he dress differently? Who the hell are you to say what makes “normal everyday people”? Ugh!
Kacyray, the fainting couch is nearby if you need it. You might not want to clutch those pearls so hard, though–it might break your lovely necklace.
Silence. Yes I miss-heard it. I need better speakers. You may now return to your regularly scheduled threads.
nifty – I listed those things to make a point. How is it condescending to cite counterexamples in order to illustrate a point? Nice try with the “I know you are but what am I” retort. That caliber of polemics is really effective while debating sunday school grandmothers.
@68 – Then why don’t people just say that? Why don’t people just say “hey, I think your point is a bit weak and unconvincing”? Why the immediate ad homs and presumptions and condescension? If you don’t find such immediate intellectual hostility disturbing, then you seem to be conditioned to a piss-poor social climate. I suppose the bloggers can’t be responsible for the quality of the commentary, but I’ve yet to find a forum of “Free Thought Blogs” where independent thought is actually appreciated. It’s more of a social club where the regulars are free to act like jackasses, but god forbid a new guy comes in and suggests something that disagrees with the head-honcho, right? Then the minions come out in droves with that weak-ass pseudo-intellectual condescension. “Oh, lemme guess! So-and-so guy-I’m-not-familiar-with is probably a big dum dum! Let’s pull his hair and push him off the see saw! Nanny nanny boo boo!!!” That’s exactly what I saw in here today.
carlie – 1) I’m not going to discuss feminism in the thread. I made that clear. 2) You’re still poisoning the well, albeit less opaquely. If you genuinely want to know why I won’t associate myself with feminism, I appreciate that. But not now, and not here. I’m still trying to understand why no one will address the points I made in my last post about atheism.
It occured to me while reading the pearl clutching that part of the problem is that the English ‘is’ is made to work too hard. It is used to equate two nouns, and a noun and an adjective. Which makes it far too easy to assert that X is Y (with a slight implication that that is all they are).
In scottish gaelic on the other hand there are two forms of the verb ‘to be’, one for equating nouns and adjectives (He is tall) and one for equating two nouns (Jane is a teacher). The one for the two nouns also for certain things tends to not say that Jane is a Teacher, but rather that there is a teacher in Jane. Implying that that is one of Jane’s aspects, but not implying that is all that is in her.
A feminist is not all that I am, but it is a feminist that is in me. Because I believe that males and females should have equal rights. Because that is pretty much what feminism is. If kacyray would like to clarify that they don’t believe that, then they should give reasons for why they don’t believe that. If it is what they believe, then perhaps they should find somewhere to burn that straw feminism they’ve been carrying around.
Possibly because you are the one that brought up the stupid comparison of feminism with atheism.
OK, so you’re not an atheist. So you believe there is a god (or more gods, or ghosts, elves, or something supernaturally other) then? Because otherwise you are twisting the meaning of the word ‘atheist’ to mean something else than what it is understood to mean (someone who does not believe there are any gods/supernatural creatures/etc).
#73
-2.3
Does anybody think if I changed my ‘nym to “Steven Strange” I’d get ignored a lot less?
Repeating myself:
And here’s the part where I actually engage with and critique your ideas, Kacyray! Isn’t it exciting? I just thought I’d let you know in case you missed it the first time.
Aside from “grade A fucking moron,” there’s a lot of good stuff in there for you to “engage” with, Kacyray. Let’s pretend for one second that you’re an adult and are able to read past the insult and understand the critique of your position I gave. To summarize:
1. Your explanation of why you don’t call yourself an atheist fails to convince. A great many movements define themselves in opposition to prevailing attitudes or systems. In fact, the people who fight for equal rights for people of color don’t even have an equivalent term to “feminism.” They are called “anti-racists.” Do you think that “anti-racism” is a suspect label in your book because anti-racist activists are “allowing others to define their identity”? If not then your stance is hypocritical and incoherent.
2. Comparing feminism to Scientology, homophobia, racism, and theism is both objectively wrong and inflammatory. Apparently you’re not used to hanging out with feminists, otherwise you’d know that. Well, surprise! Lots of feminists around here. If you don’t like it there’s a whole world wide web out there for you to socialize on. But if you’re going to comment here then you’re going to have to get used to dealing with not only skeptical criticism, but also feminist skeptical criticism of your ideas. So far you’ve danced around articulating why you don’t identify as a feminist, like a coward who can’t handle defending his ideas in front of an aggressively skeptical audience. I suspect your reasoning about feminism is as flawed as your reasoning about the atheist label. But please, if you think you can present a cogent argument as to why feminism should be categorized in with irrational bigoted systems of thought such as theism, racism, and homophobia, have at it. Like I said, I’m listening.
I think you mean to say he compared feminism to theism. And of course racism, homophobia, and Scientology. That’s totally fair, right?? I mean, it’s soooo close-minded of us to look at those comparisons and conclude that he’s either spectacularly mistaken about feminism, or not arguing in good faith! That’s tribalistic thinking, Ariaflame, not a recognition that feminism just doesn’t have any meaningful similarities with racism, homophobia, Scientology, and theism, except in that they are all systems of thought, i.e., ideologies.
aria – did you actually *read* my post @37, or are you just another bleating sheep, parroting what you think everyone around you thinks? No need to read what I actually said, right? Just look side to side with shifty eyes, try to determine what you can say to make yourself sound really smart and cool, and just start pounding away at the keyboard.
I clearly said I’m an atheist. My point is that atheism is a secondary consequence of my belief system, not a fundamental aspect of it.
I have a general question for the room…. if you were presented with evidence that, by all reason and good judgment, indicates that some sort of god or gods actually does exist… assume the evidence is scientific in nature, and is generally accepted as reliable by general scientific consensus…
Would you become a theist?
This question is important, because if you answer “yes”, then you are conceding my point, which is that you are not *primarily* an atheist, you are only one by virtue of an adherence to reason and the principles of evidence, proof, and science. If you answer “no”, then you are effectively repudiating those principles, and therefore have no business being lumped in with those of us who adhere to them, once again reinforcing my point that “atheism” is a horrible categorization, lumping together people of diametrically opposed belief systems into an indistinguishable mass of shared disbelief.
So is it yes, or no? Either way, my point is made.
SallyStrange
Make it “Stephen”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Strange
@78 – I did not compare anything to anything. What I did was list off examples of ideologies to which I do not adhere, and theism is on that list. So is feminism. I could’ve listed thousands of them if I wanted to.
“Whaa! This guy doesn’t hold the exact same beliefs I do!! Whaa!!! Why isn’t he a freethinker who thinks *just like me*???
Get over it. You whine like a fundie.
I notice how he ignored me entirely too and I was perfectly polite and didn’t attack him in any way imaginable. I guess it’s my fault for being born female and using my real name. Clearly I should use a more gender neutral (or male) handle to actually have people like him pay attention to me.
When someone makes a list about predominately negative things (homophobia, racism, cults and the like) and in the middle of it slips in ‘feminism’ it suggests that the one making that list equates feminism as being equally bad as… racism… cultists and homophobes.
Going off on a rant suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you in this forum is just part of the heard (using sheep terminology and the like) isn’t making a point. It isn’t an argument. It’s a dodge. So instead of actually addressing the points raised against you, you’re just dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as being part of some hivemind, conveniently allowing you to -not- address any of their points at all.
I’m fairly certain there are a collection of logical fallacies all neatly tied up in every single post you’ve made in reply to feminists but really… I don’t feel the desire to pick it apart.
kacyray, when you actually address me with real honest arguments, I’ll happily reply respectfully. If you just want to flat out ignore me and dismiss everyone who has taken issue with your stance then well… what’s the bloody point in trying?
First of all, Kacyray, try quoting from the things you are responding to. Makes it much easier to have an actual conversation. IF you’re interested in “exchange of ideas” then you’ll take my advice to heart.
How very disingenuous. Yes, I suppose you could also have included Wotenism, Raellianism, isolationism, anarchism, Marxism, libertarianism, veganism, and any number of things you aren’t on that list. The list is a list of things that you don’t believe in. Okay, not believing in racism, homophobia, gods, or Thetans–that’s reasonable. Not believing in equality for women? That’s not reasonable. YOU brought it up, now you’re being asked to defend why YOU CHOSE to bring it up. There is a reason you don’t believe in feminism, and since you put it on the same list as homophobia, racism, Scientology and theism, it’s quite reasonable for your readers to conclude that your reasons for not believing in all those things are similar. If it wasn’t your intent to give the impression that feminism has important characteristics in common with racism, theism, and homophobia, then this is your chance to clarify.
This, from the person who was complaining about a hostile climate? Come on dude, be a little more creative with your insults. Accusing people who disagree with you of groupthink and fundie-thinking is trite, especially when you’re being challenged to explain yourself rather than simply shouted down. You said something stupid, and now people want to know whether you actually think stupidly or whether it was a slip of the keyboard. If you value freethought then you should be able to defend your beliefs and your choices, or admit to making a mistake. You are the one who’s whining here, and you’re whining because you’re being challenged and you apparently can’t meet that challenge and you don’t like it.
As for the rest of it…
While there is debate over whether it is possible to find evidence for god (the answer to this depends on how “god” is defined) I think you will find that most folks around here view atheism as an end conclusion, at which they arrived after embracing skepticism and reason rather than faith. This is pretty basic. Apparently you are new around here. In any case, so what? We still live in a society that is dominated by theists and theist values, therefore “atheism” as a label is useful and important. Yes, atheism is the conclusion, rather than the premise, and that’s interesting and important to keep in mind during philosophical discussions. However, as part of what is essentially a social movement to change the culture we live in from a theistic culture to a secular culture that puts greater value on evidence and inquiry than it does on faith and sentimentality, “atheist” is a meaningful, necessary term to use. As I said twice already, once the culture has changed and lack of belief in supernatural beings is more mainstream, it may very well go the way of “abolitionist,” an interesting note in historical texts. But that’s not where we are right now.
Now. Are you going to actually respond this time, or are you going to once again whine hypocritically about a hostile commenting climate while flinging gratuitous accusations of groupthink and tribalism around?
michelle @82 – I didn’t see your original response. You’e right… it was honest dialogue. But to that I would say… I tried to make it clear that I was only smacking back at certain folks who were immediately presumptuous and hostile. You didn’t fall into that category, so none of what I subsequently said was directed at you.
Have you noticed the presumption that, simply because I reject the packaged-deal ideology of feminism, that I must necessarily be anti-women, or misogynistic, or some such garbage? Pretty much everyone in here did EXACTLY as I said they would! Sure, they didn’t use the actual word “misogynist” because no one would give me that sort of satisfaction (pretty predictable), but the sentiments were spot-on. Since I’m not on the team, I must be fighting for the other side, right? That’s the very essence of the presumptuousness I spoke of.
Something on that list no one mentioned was Objectivism. I’m not an Objectivist, but I have drawn a lot of benefit from Rand and her ideas. She went a long way in shaping who I am intellectually. Unfortunately, I cannot associate myself with her movement, because for one, it has been taken over by whackos, and for two, she herself was about half a burger short of a happy meal. But does that mean I’m ANTI-Objectivist? Does it mean I hate objectivists or think they shouldn’t get paid as much as everyone else?
That sort of non-sequitur is the exact same non-sequitur the feminists in this room who immediately responded to me with vitriol demonstrated. IF you’re not a feminist, THEN you must be [insert your favorite male-hostile pejorative term here].
Then they start telling me I’m comparing this to that, and blah blah blah, bleat bleat bleat, whine whine whine. Everything EXCEPT for staying on point. This sort of junior-varsity banter is an immediate put-off for guys like me who just want to have interesting conversation with intelligent people. It’s always disappointing when I realize so quickly that once again I’ve come to the wrong place.
“Wait, why aren’t you a feminist?”
I love women, and I don’t think the feminist movement serves them. I think it does more harm than good. That’s why I’m not a feminist.
“I’m not going to call you a misogynist unless you actually do/say misogynist things.”
But who is the authority on what those things are? I’ve been called a misogynist because I see nothing wrong with pornography or pictures of beautiful women naked. I see nothing wrong with it. That is but *one* aspect on which I had a clash with feminists that resulted in my repudiating that ideology forever.
“kacyray, when you actually address me with real honest arguments, I’ll happily reply respectfully.”
Read posts 37 and 73. In those posts, I make honest arguments for why uniting under the banner of atheism is a bad idea. Did you forget that this was the topic of the thread?
For the record… there are many ideologies with which I agree on *most* points. Feminism is one of those. I agree with equal pay, equal protection under the law, equal political influence, etc. But it’s the 10% with which I don’t agree that causes me to repudiate it – not to mention how distasteful I find most of its adherents to be. This applies to feminism, objectivism, and to some degree Buddhism (my wife is a practicing Buddhist, and even she groans at the way some of her fellow Buddhists act). I’m sure it applies to many other ideologies. But I AM NOT OBLIGATED to identify in some sort of packaged-deal way with any single ideology just to satisfy some pack of faceless blog commentators. You can swallow an entire package-deal ideology if you want. I choose not to, and it’s doubtful that I ever will. I can organize my own thoughts and ideas. I don’t need someone else to do it for me. And I sure as hell ain’t going to call myself ANYTHING just to appease a crowd like this.
If that means I don’t get to be part of the Micky Mouse Club, I guess I’ll just have to learn to live with that. Excuse me while I cry myself to sleep.
BTW Sally I see you around Skepchick and The Mary Sue, always happy to see your posts on the various topics ^_^
Wait, does that mean I’m part of the hivemind now?
@sallystrange – My apologies, I did indeed mean to compare the feminism to theism not atheism.
@kacyray – I did indeed miss that little bit at the bottom of the post #37 stating that you were an atheist.
I take it that what you are objecting to therefore is the terminology. Do you have a better one? We tend to use terminology like this (atheist) to represent a longer concept that is a pain to use all of the time. It’s a shortcut ‘I am an atheist’ that indicates ‘I am a person who does not believe that god(s)/supernatural creatures exist’
If it got to the point where nobody believed in gods then no, we wouldn’t all be atheists as there would be no theists to compare ourselves to, and we wouldn’t care because there would be no need to use the word except in a historical context.
In the unlikely event that proof positive for an actual god existed, and convinced me, then I would no longer be an atheist, because I follow the evidence, but it is unlikely that I would become a theist either. Because even if a god does turn up, the chances of that god (if it is any of the gods currently worshiped on this planet) being something worth worshiping is very slim.
Knowledge that something exists does not require belief. I’m pretty certain the computer keyboard that I’m typing on exists. It doesn’t require that I believe it exists nor that I worship it. Possibly a bit of cleaning.
Also, if you read my post about language, then you will know that while an atheist is one of the things that I am, it is not all that I am.
But please stop with all the hivemind references etc. I think someone is ahead of me on the bingo. (Also, ad hominems, I think you need to check the meaning. Or quote where someone said that because you were stupid/whatever that your arguments could be ignored.)
Is there a bingo card for whatever kacyray is?
kacyray, the problem is you didn’t just list things you aren’t a member of, you list almost exclusively very, horrible, TERRIBLE bad things that you aren’t part of and in there put feminism.
I’m ok with you not being a feminist, I don’t demand everyone think and feel like I do (the world would be bloody well screwed up if that were the case). I do however take issue with you sandwiching in feminism right next to racism and the KKK.
Yes I’m sure you’ve been called terrible things by some feminists, just as I’ve been called a wide swath of terrible things by MRA, random dudes, gamers and comic book fans. You’re taking the behavior of a minority (no matter how vocal) and putting their behavior onto everyone who identifies as feminist. The core principals of feminism are equal rights for women, that’s it. Everything else is tacked on by people who identify as feminists and also want to fight these things (pornography, sex work, etc) yes while under a similar umbrella (women’s rights) they aren’t the cornerstone of feminism.
So can you see why I find it so profoundly offensive and insulting to have you list feminism in the exact same negative manner as you did the KKK? If your list was more varied and didn’t just have all negative things (Yes I find all that Rand nonsense to be profoundly negative, disgusting and selfish.).
You don’t have to be a feminist (Though I don’t understand why anyone would be against being one, just as I’m boggled that anyone would be against being part of the civil rights movement and supporting it.) but just realize what message you’re sending when you lump in feminists with racists, cultists and theocrats.
Such utter bullshit. Women are individuals. Some of us are assholes. I’m a woman. You don’t know me, and you don’t love me. I wouldn’t believe you if you claimed you did. Only idiots claim to “love” ALL members of [insert demographic x here]. Usually bigoted idiots, but sometimes just idiots.
Oh, have you not received the telepathic transmission from the mothership yet? We’ll have to adjust the frequency.
Don’t worry, it’s painless. And we have cookies. And bacon.
Not sure, that’s why I’m behind, finding the right card is hard. There’s the hivemind stuff, the sheep accusations, the incorrect use of ad hominem, perhaps those are on multiple cards which is why I’m having the problem.
I didn’t notice that. Hmmm. Maybe because it never fucking happened. You want to be taken seriously? Then provide the quotes of who accused you of being anti-woman or misogynist. Names, too, not just comment numbers. It’s common courtesy.
The only thing that surprises me about kacyray is that he didn’t choose a pompous moniker proclaiming his superior reasoning ability, you know, like “SkepticalFreethinker” or “RationalHuman” or “MoreLogicalThanYou.”
@83 – I am not a doormat. For you to try to equate me sticking up for myself with the unprovoked hostility that was initiated against me for simply making a statement is unfair and I reject that. You can bet your bottom dollar that I won’t hurl the first grenade, but I’ll damn sure hurl one back.
“How very disingenuous. Yes, I suppose you could also have included Wotenism, Raellianism, isolationism, anarchism, Marxism, libertarianism, veganism, and any number of things you aren’t on that list.”
Disingenuous? I listed off ideologies that met two criteria: 1) I don’t identify with the package-deal of the ideology itself and 2) It’s adherents use specific pejorative terms to describe outsiders. I was very deliberate in selecting that criteria because it speaks directly to the point I was making about atheism. “Atheism” is a legitimate word that is used *as a pejorative* by theists. My point was that by waving that banner around, you have allowed theists to determine what’s on it. You capitulate to them the control over what you call yourself. That should embarrass you!
There’s absolutely nothing disingenuous about me. Does this “liar liar pants on fire” crap in any way promote civil discourse? And you wonder why I lashed back.
“Accusing people who disagree with you of groupthink and fundie-thinking is trite, especially when you’re being challenged to explain yourself rather than simply shouted down.”
I accuse people who disagree with me of group-think…. when they exhibit group-think!
“You said something stupid, and now people want to know whether you actually think stupidly or whether it was a slip of the keyboard.”
I stand by every word I’ve said. I told you what my criteria in selecting those specific ideologies were, and that’s why I used them. If you projected some sort of relationship between them, or assumed that I did, or whatever… that’s on you. If you assumed that I was comparing them, I get the feeling it’s because the moment you read “I’m not a feminist” you went straight into target mode and really didn’t absorb what I was actually saying.
Let’s try this again. I’m not a feminist.
“I think you will find that most folks around here view atheism as an end conclusion, at which they arrived after embracing skepticism and reason rather than faith.”
Right. That’s exactly what I said. Reason is primary – atheism is secondary. That’s my point. Who identifies themselves by a secondary consequence of their primary epistemological mechanism? As far as I can tell, only atheists that unite under the big red banner. No one else comes to mind.
“We still live in a society that is dominated by theists and theist values, therefore “atheism” as a label is useful and important.”
Then you are conceding my point that you are allowing theists to frame the discussion and determine your primary identifier. Got it. Just don’t expect me to do that.
“Now. Are you going to actually respond this time, or are you going to once again whine hypocritically about a hostile commenting climate while flinging gratuitous accusations of groupthink and tribalism around?”
Golly, you’ve made such progress in changing my opinion. No matter… I’m sure this room is just a group of really nice people who fit nicely into John Gabriels Greater Internet Dickwad Theory. http://www.inquisitr.com/34223/john-gabriels-greater-internet-dickwad-theory/
“Such utter bullshit. Women are individuals. Some of us are assholes. I’m a woman. You don’t know me, and you don’t love me. I wouldn’t believe you if you claimed you did. Only idiots claim to “love” ALL members of [insert demographic x here]. Usually bigoted idiots, but sometimes just idiots.”
Jesus Christ. Remind me to never again say that I like hamburgers. Or movies. Or kids. Because Sally here doesn’t understand the concept of colloquial terms.
You’re right. I don’t love you. And I don’t like you. And those right there are my final words to you.
Aria – “I take it that what you are objecting to therefore is the terminology. Do you have a better one? We tend to use terminology like this (atheist) to represent a longer concept that is a pain to use all of the time. It’s a shortcut ‘I am an atheist’ that indicates ‘I am a person who does not believe that god(s)/supernatural creatures exist’
I don’t really have a good solution for that yet. I choose “advocate of reason”, simply for lack of anything more concise. Believe me, I wish I could find a good “…..ist” to call myself, but I don’t think there is one. “Reasonist” sounds pretty silly, so for now I have to stick with a three-word identifier. But at least I know who my intellectual allies are. Remember… atheist can be arrived at by many paths. To consider atheism an article of faith (just because my parents believe that way) is every bit as misguided as theism accepted for similar reasons.
“but it is unlikely that I would become a theist either. Because even if a god does turn up, the chances of that god (if it is any of the gods currently worshiped on this planet) being something worth worshiping is very slim.”
One need not worship a god to be a theist. One only needs to believe a god exists.
“But please stop with all the hivemind references etc. I think someone is ahead of me on the bingo. (Also, ad hominems, I think you need to check the meaning. Or quote where someone said that because you were stupid/whatever that your arguments could be ignored.)”
LOL! Yeah, bingo! No hivemend activity going on there, right? Man, come on!
That’s hysterical. And so clever. Let’s see… “I know guys! We can make a bingo card, and every time someone does something on the card, we mark the square! What goes on the card? Well, one of them is “Groupthink”. Every time someone accuses us of groupthink, we will all mark this square. Who’s with me??”
“WE ARE!!!!”
That wins the “Irony of the night” prize.
michelle – “You’re taking the behavior of a minority (no matter how vocal) and putting their behavior onto everyone who identifies as feminist.”
Not really. It’s been pretty consistent. This room here is a prime example.
“I do however take issue with you sandwiching in feminism right next to racism and the KKK.”
No one likes to see their own personal sacred cow lumped in with all those other cows.
“So can you see why I find it so profoundly offensive and insulting to have you list feminism in the exact same negative manner as you did the KKK? If your list was more varied and didn’t just have all negative things”
Yes, I see it. Yes, I understand it. Would I go back and change it? Probably not, because like I said – those specific ideologies were chosen based on the criteria I mentioned. And as I’ve pointed out, I also included at least one ideology with which I identify a great deal. You might think Objectivism is garbage, but I see it as a legitimate starting point, with some critical flaws that need to be corrected.
“The core principals of feminism are equal rights for women, that’s it.”
Assuming for the moment that this is true (I don’t know that you speak for the feminist movement), I would then say that I therefore agree with the core principles. The problem is that it seems that feminism has a deeper issue – one of power differentials. I’ve run across feminists that have a problem with the inescapable reality that power differentials exist between human beings, and that when those power differentials favor women… well, that’s all fine and well. But when they favor men, suddenly we need to apologize for it and bend over backwards to tell them how sorry we are for that *even when we never used that power differential to the detriment of whatever women happens to be involved*. Just the mere *existence* of a power differential seems to be something that men owe women an apology for…. but when it’s the other way around, it’s basically a wash.
And here’s the other thing…. if what you’re saying is true, that feminism is basically geared around equality for women… then the debate turns to what *rights* are. Men can play in the NFL. Should women have a right to do so as well? Women are nuns. Should men have the right to be one of those? If there’s a killer at the door… should women invoke their demand for equality when they’re deciding which of them should go fend off the intruder? Probably not. So you see, the water is actually quite a bit more murky than you’re making it out to be, and I see some very problems with the movement. When you really drill down, you find that it’s not the pure, benevolent, squeaky-clean, good-intentioned movement that it seems on the surface to be. THAT is why I’m not a feminist.
So now you’ve gone and enticed me into getting into feminism, something I wasn’t going to do. But by this point there should be no misunderstanding of what I believe and why I won’t call myself a feminist.
And yet I continue to be unembarrassed. How rude of me… or something.
Also, “misogynist” is a descriptive term. Like “racist” or “homophobe,” it refers to a particular set of actions and/or speech patterns that reinforce systemic bigotry. You are objectively wrong about feminists reflexively applying that label to “outsiders.” Feminists, in general, apply that label to people who demonstrate misogynist behavior. Note, for example, that no one has specifically accused you of being a misogynist here. The closest anyone came was me noting that you did something misogynists often do, which is lump feminism in with wackaloon hate groups. Which is true: misogynists often do do that. I can provide evidence for this, if necessary. Some feminists view supporting pornography as a misogynist action. I don’t always agree with this viewpoint, but that’s immaterial. The point is, it’s not an epithet, it’s a descriptive label, much like atheist. Sorry you got your feelings hurt when someone called you a misogynist. Too bad you decided to make it all about your hurt feelings instead of investigating the reasoning behind it. Too bad you decided to exercise irrational thinking by allowing your experiences with a few predetermine your responses to the group in general (i.e. how you reflexively assumed that people would accuse you of being anti-woman, which I will again point out has not happened).
Mostly because you’re a Randian idiot who doesn’t understand feminism at all. Yeah, that’s pretty clear.
This thing about allowing theists to dictate what I call myself… it’s pretty silly, actually. Theists also call me a sinner, a heathen, a devil-worshiper, and other less nice things. But I don’t adopt those labels because they’re stupid and inaccurate. “Atheist” is accurate and I see nothing to be ashamed of about it. Kind of like how when I was in high school kids teased me for being a lesbian, as if lesbian was a horrible insult and I should be ashamed of myself. I’m not actually a lesbian, but that didn’t stop me from turning around and, if not outright embracing the label, publicly proclaiming that I wasn’t insulted by it and didn’t care if people called me a lesbian, I wasn’t going to share the details of my (then non-existent) sex life with them anyway.
Your objection reads more like a toddler’s temper tantrum than anything else. “I won’t let them label me!!” They’re going to label you regardless. It could be argued that by rejecting the label because (you perceive that) it came from theists, you’re being just as reactive as you accuse us of doing. You’re allowing them to determine the connotations of the term. The literal meaning of “atheist” is simply “without god”–by rejecting it you are implicitly accepting that there is something bad about being without god or gods. I don’t see how that’s any more or less reactive than accepting the label. It is of course your choice entirely to self-identify as an atheist or struggle to invent a new term that means the same thing (which theists will eventually imbue with all the negative associations you are attempting to avoid anyway). But face it, man: if you are attempting to persuade anyone else to follow your example, your arguments frankly suck.
And what’s wrong with discussing feminism? You obviously have huge issues about it, and lots of misunderstandings. Don’t you like learning new things? As an alleged freethinker, you should welcome the opportunity to correct any misunderstandings you may have about the world.
[meta]
kacyray:
You’re a specimen. :)
There is a difference between in-jokes and groupthink.
Complaining about tone rather than content also gets short shrift around here.
So you don’t want to be whatever your definition of a feminist is. But you admit to agreeing with the core definition of feminism. Bit of a conundrum there.
kacyray,
“You lump yourself in the same category as a million other idiots and whackos who don’t happen to believe in god.”
This reminds me of arguments I have come across in the gay community – the “I want gay equality but I don’t want to be associated with gay stereotypes, e.g. drag queens etc” A very naive argument. For success the gay community had to come together, ignoring differences and focusing on the need for equal rights.
I see a similar need with atheists. We need to unite, despite our differences, and focus on what we have in common – a disbelief in god and a need to be seen as a normal part of society. This ca only come through visibility.
Of course, if you don’t want to jump on the bandwagon then don’t, but you might find it very lonely if you are looking for others who are exactly like you,
Well, I don’t believe in the claim that at least one Über-powerful supernatural creature controls reality, so I am an atheist.
(But then, I am many other things too)
Quoting Sally Strange for truth. And I want to add: by virtue of being a dominant majority throughout most of history, it’s true that the discussion is framed by them, because never before has there been another viable alternative. Fire makes a good deterrent and all that. Until they STOP being the dominant party, the one with the authority, they WILL continue to frame the discussion. That’s real life, and one needs to take real life practicalities into account.
Ideologically, from an ivory tower kind of view, what you are saying has merit w.r.t. the framing of the conversation. However, in practice, on the ground, in the real world, in the time that we are living in right now with the history we’re dragging behind us, that’s what it remains: an ivory tower exercise in philosophical masturbation under the guise of being “moar rational” or something.
I, too, am most curious about the feminism thing and find it disturbing that you wrote off an entire movement for equality just because there’s one little thing that not even everybody in the movement agrees on in any case that pissed you off that one time.
That kind of screams “conditional ally” to me, but I’m open to being convinced otherwise, to further connect to Sally’s post:
The inverse is true, too. As freethinkers, I’m sure we’d be delighted (not that I can speak on behalf of Teh Horde, I speak only for myself) if you can show us were those of us who DO identify as feminists are victims of shoddy thinking, contradiction or irrationality in some way so that we can correct that.
kacyray: You are correct inidentifying the commenters of this blog as a community with a history. However, you seem to be confused about the implications of that for you. You have made at least three bad arguments that have been discussed on these threads several-many times over the years. If people don’t seem like engaging them, it is likely because they are tiresome.
1. Your initial position of decrying the label of atheism as an epistemological negative does nothing to address the reality of perceptions of unbelievers. Call yourself a “freethinker” and no theist will gripe, because it doesn’t conflict with what many of them believe is a reasonable position. Admit atheism, and you become someone to be distrusted.
2. Your position that you are reasonable because evidence could sway you to the theist position is on its face unreasonable. Atheism 101.
3. That you would even bring up feminism as a rhetorical device indicates that you have no understanding of this community. I have learned more about feminism in the last several years from the astute commentariat than I really deserve to. Your interpretation of feminism reveals a deep and ugly ignorance that needs remediation.
Nero was a polytheist. He worshipped the Roman pantheon.
And Napoleon returned the Catholic Church’s property and gave them free reign.
You just lost almost a full point of your Troll Score by spelling his name correctly. Idiot.
Thank you. And, please notice, we appear to have a developing conspiracy of morons on this very thread! Coincidence?
Well, probably.
Can I ask a favour of our esteemed host? Could you post the actual definition of ad hominem fallacy somewhere on the page so that every time a troll is called a bad name they don’t immediately jump into that hole? It rreally is tiresome.
Then why did you bring it up?
Bingo!
Hmm. Are we playing ‘blackout bingo’?
The radical idea that female homo sapiens are actually human does more harm than good? What?
You object, strenuously, to the term atheist. We get that. Others, here before me, have explained their positions in a (for this place) normal tone of ‘voice’! And you continue to whine about tone. Do you even read what you write?
I am also a liberal, which is also used as an insult. As is progressive. As is Democrat. What is your point?
This from an Ayn Rand fan. Hee. Hee.
Thank you.
kacyray, you have lumped yourself in with millions of other idiots who think that selfishness is a social virtue, that government is incapable of doing anything, that paying one’s fair share to make society liveable is a sin, and that if we eliminate all the rules, people and corporations will suddenly become saints. All of which has as much evidence as the existence of gods.
=====
I gotta figure out what is wrong with my home computer. I missed this live and have to catch the rerun.
Wouldn’t it just be easier for atheists to establish their own state and to live according to their own laws? The new nation could be called “Atheistia” or something. That way we would be rid of you and you would be rid of us. “One Nation Under God” for us and “One Nation under godless anarchy” for you lot.
Heck, PZ could even be elected President of the new atheist republic. Jerry Coyne could Secretary of State and Daniel Dennett could become the Speaker of the House.You could then teach Evolutionism non-stop in the classroom.
sixdays:
Why should I leave the country in which I was born, the country in which I pay my fair share of taxes, the country I work for? Why should I have to move away for doing something that the United States Constitution allows?
You do realize that our founding fathers debated the possibility of making the United States a Christian republic and decided against it, right? You do reallize they debated having a state religion and decided no? And that the idea of having a religious requirement for public office was also debated and shot down? They wanted a secular state. If you refuse to live in a secular state (which includes secular people (and atheists)), why don’t you leave?
Are you serious? That’s like, second grade level thinking right there.
Yes, women should be allowed to be in the NFL if they can meet the criteria. There have been many cases of women wrestling and doing quite well, if you’re looking for a big ol’ macho sport to use. Interestingly, it turns out that historically one of the reasons that other women’s sports like skiing have been so carefully cordoned off from men’s sports is that it turned out that women often beat men when they’re facing off against each other.
Men can be nuns – they’re called priests. Except that the men get a lot of perks and authority that the nuns don’t. Funny how that works. But that’s a weird religious thing, so I have no opinion on their own internal rules whatsoever except that it’s all stupid.
Killer at the door – I’d absolutely send the woman I know who is a second-degree black belt rather than my husband, who I don’t think could bring himself to actively hurt someone if he tried.
I’m dying to know about that 10% of feminism you don’t agree with. See, from my vantage point, you including “I don’t agree with feminism” is pretty much equivalent to you saying “I don’t agree with anti-racism” or “I don’t believe in gay rights” or, basically, “I don’t believe that all people are equal”. That’s something that is certifiably anti-rational, which is why it undercuts your entire argument.
Do you have reason to believe that this (i.e. that feminism is about equal rights for women) is NOT true, as you seem to be insinuating? Or for why you seem to accept that it’s not true?
I’m going to request some form of you backing up what you say here.
a.) When you say “power differentials”, what do you mean? Physical? Social? Physiological? Are you referring to the concept sociologists call “Privilege”? Or is this more a biological thing that you specifically are talking about here? Your insistence that it’s “inherent” seems to point towards a biological interpretation, so I’m going with that. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.
b.) Some examples of where its “all fine and well” if these “power differentials” favour women would really be helpful, because I have no clue what you’re getting at.
a.) Once again, some examples (with sources, please) of where men suddenly need to apologize for “power differentials” – inherent “power differentials”, at that.
b.) Ever heard of a term called “systemic”? It’s something used in social sciences and you seem to be ignorant of its use and application and meaning and is especially applicable here, in this point you make, so I need to know if I need to explain it to you before we continue discussing the argument.
It does? How? Why?
Yeah, Carlie pretty effectively deals with these “murky waters” that turn out to be not that murky after all.
So what is it then?
I deeply apologize, the above comment (108) should be addressed in its entirety to kacyray
Gen Fury @102 – I didn’t write off the movement because of one little thing. The issue of power differentials is a huge game-changer for me. Huge.
“if you can show us were those of us who DO identify as feminists are victims of shoddy thinking, contradiction or irrationality in some way so that we can correct that.”
Look, it’s possible that feminism is this great and wonderful thing and that 100% of the feminists I’ve ever met were all just misrepresenting. But this sound eerily like the “oh, but those are’t True Christians(TM)” line that I get from fundies all the time. To say that all the people I’ve spoken to, who call themselves feminists, were not representative of real feminism and that feminism is really simple (equality for women) yet I do not understand it (because it’s apparently really complex)… I just feel like that sounds so familiar.
area – “There is a difference between in-jokes and groupthink.”
You’re not exempt from having your card pulled just because you slapped something on a bingo card. You don’t get to say “Hey, since we realized ahead of time that if we start to sound like we’re cogs in the same machine… let’s put it on a bingo card and laugh at anyone who points it out!” If you quack like a duck… I don’t care if you have the word “duck” on a bingo card. You’re still a duck.
“Complaining about tone rather than content also gets short shrift around here.”
Ah, once again.. you just exempt yourself. “This is how we do things around here”
“So you don’t want to be whatever your definition of a feminist is. But you admit to agreeing with the core definition of feminism. Bit of a conundrum there.”
What I said was that I refuse to identify with the movement based on the characterization of feminism that I’ve received from OTHER FEMINISTS, and I said that I agree with the core principles YOU identified – but I also said that I realize you don’t speak for the feminist movement (there’s a bigger picture involved). Sorry, I see no conundrum.
antiochus -“Your position that you are reasonable because evidence could sway you to the theist position is on its face unreasonable. Atheism 101.”
I didn’t say my positions are reasonable because evidence could sway me to theism. I said that my loyalty is primarily to reason, not to whatever positions reason leads me to. Therefore it only makes sense to identify myself that way – as the primary cause, not as the derivative.
“That you would even bring up feminism as a rhetorical device indicates that you have no understanding of this community”
The culture of this community has no bearing on the argument I’ve made in support of using a primary belief system as a personal ideology identifier. I will say this… I can only imagine how many good, solid, intelligent, genuine people have come and gone from this place simply because of the toxic, unnecessarily disrespectful atmosphere. I thought for sure I was going to find better over here… but now that I see that such atmosphere’s aren’t limited to any single forum, I’ve beginning to wonder if maybe it’s a larger culture as a whole.
I remember when I fell in love with the game of chess years ago – I tried to get involved with so many chess clubs, only to find that no matter where I went, any sufficiently large group of players had the same “feel” to it… they were all snobs, they were all full of themselves, and as much as I enjoyed the game, I just left with feeling that I’d be happier never to be around them again. It was even worth it not to have the luxury of associating with those heavy-hitters, just not to have to listen to their self-absorbed bullshit.
I’m getting the exact same feeling here. And I’m not directing that at any single person or comment. And I’m not saying it to be contentious. I’m just telling you how it it.
Ogvorbis:
The founding fathers didn’t want to impose a religion, or non-religion, on the populace. That is what is meant by “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
That is not a call for secularism or the separation of religion and state. The fathers were of different religious persuasions and it made no sense for one particular church to be established like it was in England at the time (and still is).
The crucial thing about the First amendment clause is that no law can be passed that prohibits or prevents religious expression. If parents want prayers to be allowed in schools, or for creationist ideas to be allowed to be presented in class, there is no constitutional impediment for this.
carlie – I’m short on time, but I’ll point out that I’ve never said “I don’t don’t agree with feminism”. I’ve said, no fewer than half a dozen times, that I agree with much of it, But I will not swallow the whole package.
Gen Fury – Time precludes me from getting into your comment, although it’s one of the precious few here that I’ve actually desired to engage. What I will say is that your demand for explanations of those power differentials is EXACTLY what I was demanding from the last feminist I had this conversation with.
Since she is an actual blogger and feminist activist, I see no harm in naming her. Her name is Sarah Braasch-Joy. I may or may not have spelled that correctly. What happened was – I was attempting to give her positions serious consideration. I was trying to have an honest conversation – I really was. But she kept going and on about how these power differentials are inherently oppressive, and demanding that if I had no problem with the existence of these differentials than that made me part of the problem, etc… Pretty much every single commenter in the room was right behind her, so either there was some tribalism going on there (and I’m sure they have their own bingo card) or they were speaking for the feminist movement just as surely as you are. I was put off by it because every time I tried to drill down into a point, she would just say “I’ve already addressed that – research all my blogs”, which was a clear evasive tactic. She didn’t mind talking up a storm… until I asked for clarification.
Anyway, that is only one instance. There are more. So who’s really representing feminism? Her? Or all of you?
I guess I’ll find out in 10 hours or so when I get back.
Yeah. Accepting that about half of homo sapiens are actually human beings who should have the same rights as the other half just might possibly be a good thing.
No way is this a snobby community. They still let me comment, so you know the standards are low.
So, kacyray, what, exactly, are you trying to accomplish here? A negation of the term atheist in all conversation? A negation of the movement which seeks to admit the subset of woman into the larger set of human? Seriously, what do you want?
@sixdays:
It doesn’t matter what the Founding Fathers said. They allowed interpretation of the Constitution to be put on the Judicial Branch. In their interpretation of the Constitution they (mostly) agreed that government mandated prayer and government mandated advancement of faith-based ideas in schools was a violation of the First Amendment.
Oh, and also – prayer is allowed in school. It’s just not allowed to be mandatory or spoken from the authorities within the school district.
Ogvorbis: – Originally what I wanted to to vet this point through a gauntlet of minds whose worldview seems to be similar to mind (adherence to reason) – the point being that THAT is the way we should identify ourselves – not by the derivative.
Then my point became to defend myself against the immediate hostility and disrespect I encountered.
Then my point because to have honest dialogue with the few people here who seemed to desire it. I even explained my apprehension toward the feminist movement in detail at someone’s request.
Gotta run.
Which means that, for instance, I cannot use my position as a federal employee to tell other people how idiotic and damaging religion is. I can do it as a private individual but, as a government employee, paid by all Americans (religious or not, Christian or not), I cannot force my belief system onto someone else through my job.
But there is. Suppose I am a teacher in a public school. Suppose I decide to lead the class in prayer at the beginning of the day. Suppose I recite a Navajo dawn prayer? Or a haditha? or readings from the Kama Sutra? That would be just as illegal as a teacher leading a class in a Christian prayer. It would be using one’s job as a public employee to to establish an approved religion.
There is no law against prayer at school. There is a Constitutional prohibition against a public employee leading a prayer in a public school. See the difference?
By the way, why should I move away, since I am the one actually willing to live by the law of the land?
sixdays:
That’s it exactly.
And what is the practice of religious ritual in a classroom or a state congress? Imposition of religion. What is the placement of symbols of a specific religion on public ground? Imposition of religion.
Christians try to have it both ways. They fight hard to suppress other religions, while at the same time fighting for public/government support of their own religion. This is obvious in the way Christians fight against the building of mosques, or the teaching of science in science class. This is obvious in their very public fight to keep loving couples from marrying, using their religion’s definition of “marriage” as their sole argument.
The entire point of the separation argument is simply this: you cannot have freedom of religion as long as one religion dominates the public sphere. The only solution is to remove the practice of religion from the commons, to make religion a private affair. This is called secularism.
Let me say that once again: secularism is the only way to abide by the first amendment. The government can in no way favor a particular religion. This means that all government functions should be free of official religious support. That includes non-secular prayer banners, teacher-led praying in school, ten commandment monuments on courthouse lawns, and so on.
If you don’t like that, you don’t like the Constitution.
kacyray: You have your hands full (although sixdays seems poised to steal your spotlight), but I have a quibble.
You kinda did. Emphasis mine:
Either way, your point is baloney.
Or maybe you were just fractally wrong. Sometimes if everyone thinks you’re wrong, it’s because you’re wrong.
Given your rather poor demonstration of reasoning, maybe I’d just as soon you weren’t lumped with the rest of the atheists. However, that would be counter to the point of having a banner at all. Theists need to know that atheism incorporates all types of people, the rational and irrational, feminist and misogynist, libertarian and socially responsible alike. They theist needs to know that one cannot identify an atheist under some simple rubric. There are all kinds of reasons that people reject god (not all of them rational). However diverse the atheist community may be, most theists do lump us into one distrusted category. We need them to know that we are everywhere doing everything.
sixdays*:
Ahem.
Prayer is allowed in schools. What isn’t allowed is prayer-time for everyone. That would be establishment of religion. Similarly, creationists are allowed to be teachers. They aren’t allowed to teach religion.
Dope.
*I see that others have pointed as much out, but I suspect that your skull is a little thicker than most.
@AE:
*pedant mode activated*
Well actually, creationists are allowed to teach religion. Just in a comparitive religions class, and without a bias towards any one specific religion.\
*end pedant mode*
Is it a product of Groupthink to
?
Note that Kacyray is still unable to produce quotes indicating who accused him of being anti-woman or misogynist, as he defensively predicted and later falsely claimed.
How else can it be interpreted? Show your inane and idiotic work.
Right, private, not public and publically endorsed expressions. As anythinker knows. Which leave you out.
Actually there is. Since the schools are an instrument of the state, it amounts as endorsment unless it is kept private. Kids may privately pray in schools now, no problem. But a teacher can’t lead those prayers, nor should they. Creationism may be taught in schools now, where it belongs, in classes of comparative religion, mythology, or philosophy. But not science classes, where it must show that it is a scientific, and not a religious theory. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has decreed creationism is a religious, not a scientific, idea, which is the truth. So, what is your fuckwitted problem?
The only way one can differentiate oneself, whether religiously, rationally, as a species, is by comparison to another. If I call myself a Homo sapiens, I am differentiating myself from other (now extinct) species within the genus Homo. If I call myelf a male, a husband, a father, an atheist, I am describing who I am by pointing out my differences. This is normal.
This is a pretty diverse group here. High school students to retirees. Men and women. Gay, bi, straight, lesbian and transexual. Those who have escaped from the restrictions and absurdity of organized religion and those, like myself, who were never a part of it (I grew up Unitarian — about as far from organized religion as one can get). We have teachers, scientists, IT specialists, and even the occasional liberal arts idiot. This is an online community that is based on us, for the most part, being atheists. That is what we have in common — no gods. If we are not allowed to call ourselves atheists (because it is, among the bigotted, an insult), then what are we and, more important, how do we define our community?
Failure to immediately agree with your opinion regarding the tone of our self-identity is not hostility and disrespect. Your jump from defending your point to defending yourself from imagined attacks (and no, they were not, any of them, ad hominem fallacies). Which, generally, is a good way to identify a troll who is not interested in a real conversation but, rather, looking for a reaction. You argue the reaction, not the original point in your comment.
And accusing people of dishonesty because they had an honestly negative reaction to your proposal is a very good, and thoroughly dishonnest, way to silence discussion. You toss in a verbal hand grenade about feminism (aka human rights) and then expect to be treated with respect? Why? If you want to have an honest discussion, you need to be honest.
Enjoy your travel over roads and sidewalks built and maintained through taxation. Have fun driving your car which is hundreds of times safer than a car built 40 years ago because of federal regulatoins. Enjoy the clean water and clean air made possible through federal regulations. And imagine life in a Randian paradise.
Ah, Bingo for the fuckwitted liberturd, Arrogant, Ignorant, Stubborn, and Can’t recognize reality if it tripped of it and it bit them in the crotch. You see cupcake, our reason is based in reality, not political theology.
Libertarianism. The political solution to the age-old problem, “Why isn’t anyone profiting from the tragedy of the commons?”
Nerd of Redhead:
Let me give you a history lesson. The Pilgrim fathers fled England because they were persecuted by the established church of the time: The Church of England. Like the Anglicans, they were Protestant Christians, but had their own form of worship and beliefs. By 1776, Americans were of different Christian denominations as well some Jews and Moslems.
The Founding fathers were determined that no one church or religious organization should become mandatory, and that is why the establishment clause was provided. I fully agree with this.
But they were not suggesting a separation of religion from state or public life, only that Government should not promote any religious belief and make it compulsory. Enshrined in the first amendment is the right to practice one’s religion freely and without the Government trying to prevent you. Hence, if a group of students wants to pray in a public school, or soldiers want to pray in military barracks, they have every legal right to do so.
They fled Holland because Holland was too tolerant of secular society. They wanted a society where their religion reign supreme.
It was not because they were persecuted. It was because they did not like any other sect. In other words, they were theocrats.
It may be a minor point by now, but the argument with sixdays has two things that should be brought up:
The Treaty Of Tripoli isn’t embedded in the constitution or scrawled in stone on the DC Mall, but it should be used as a decent example of the thinking of ‘The Founding Fathers.’ Considering the document was read in congress, passed unanimously in the senate and was published in major papers with no public outcry, it should be a valid enough license to interpret the actual constitutional documents as meaning separation of church and state, as well as freedom of religion that includes freedom FROM state displays of religion and expectation of the public to follow any but their own convictions in that regard.
That document, along with letters from many of the important players in the early union should show the distaste many of these men had for organized religion. Perhaps being personally affected by, or only a generation or two removed from the religious persecution rippling through the European continent makes one a little more aware of how gingerly the wording must be to guarantee freedoms for everyone that is supposed to last for centuries and to ward off any future attempts at re-introducing theocracy, which no one wanted to see again.
As for the comment about Bin Laden being gone and now PZ is public enemy number one…let’s see, now how was Bin Laden removed from this enemy list? Hmmmm…it’s so recent, what thing happened to Bin Laden so that he would no longer be a “Public Enemy?” Oh yeah, he was SHOT!
If PZ is next on that list then you are essentially threatening PZ with gun violence, which is oh so fucking typical of the kind of idiot that believes the things you are typing, sixdays. If you didn’t read the disclaimer on the placard upon entering this website, it says that any utterances of threats towards the weblog author will be reported to authorities and you will be banned.
It’s not like you intended to come here for any rational or useful debate anyway, so it’s absolutely no big loss to any of us here. If you’re a troll, please wank somewhere else. If you’re a Poe, it wasn’t well done at all because decent Poes have subtle but humorous winks to them. If you are genuinely that dense, people like you have heads so full of shit that you must see nothing but the color brown when you desperately and unsuccessfully try to ‘think.’
And yet when the lawsuits happens, it is because school officials are leading the students or officers are ordering their troops.
@Nigelthebold:
Clearly, you have a problem differentiating between what is mandatory and what is permissible. The Constitution expressly forbids the State mandating that people should adhere to certain religious beliefs or values. What it does not do is prevent them from freely exercising them. It is indeed illegal to force children to pray in a classroom, but it is perfectly legal to allow those who wish to do so to engage in religious worship within the framework of the school schedule. In the military, religious services are provided to those who want to participate. Some servicemen are assigned the rating of “religious program specialist”: their job is to assist the chaplain in performing these services.
If an elected school board wants to explore creationism or ID in the classroom, be it in science class or elsewhere, the Government cannot intervene to prevent them. This is a local issue that must be resolved at the local level- i.e by teachers, parents and students. There is no constitutional impediment to this. That is what it means to live in a free and democratic society rather than a secular and totalitarian one.
Katherine Lorraine: quite right.
sixdays:
??
The “pilgrim fathers” had as much to do with the constitution as the founding fathers had to do with emancipation.
Of course. Who said otherwise?
Oh, wait.
You did when you proposed that PZ be made a public enemy.
Why do you write this when you do not believe it? You want teachers in public schools to lead children in prayer. Compulsory public prayer. Compulsory Christian prayer. How is that not promoting a religious belief and making it compulsory?
The Consititution is not like the bible. You are not allowed to use your own meanings for any of the words. Each person cannot interpert the Constitution willy-nilly as Christians do with the bible. You cannot conveniently ignore or change a part of the Constitution with which you disgree (though it has been done so many times to the bible that even biblical scholars can’t agree on what was originally written).
Students can pray in a public school. They cannot use paid-for-by-public-money class time to do so. Nor can a teacher, or any other representative of the government, lead them in prayer. If they do either of these, then the government is promoting religion.
You hit right on as to why the Constitutional Convention decided not to have an established church. You have chosen to interpret it in a way that makes no sense. You have no problem with Christians leading prayer groups, or praying before a football game, or a basketball game, or before a schoolboard meeting, or any other time. But what if it is not a Christian prayer? How long would your approval last? That is what is meant by separation of church and state.
And you still refuse to answer my question? Why should I move out when I am one of the ones actually following the law of the land whereas you and your ilk insist on treating the Constitution as a piece of religious writing with meaning that can be changed by whoever wants to?
McCthulhu, just a minor point. It is probably more likely that the reason for this is not because of a distaste for organized religion. The different colonies that formed the US had different religious traditions. It is more likely that no one was willing to let their own beliefs be subservient to a state church form a different colony. Secularism was a means to keep that from happening.
History indicates otherwise.
You cannot teach a doctrine of a specific religious group in public school and not be promoting that.
Also local government is still government. Sorry.
So disingenuous. I don’t want the government promoting religion…except where I want it promoting religion.
kacyray
I’m about to run but I didn’t want to leave before I saying that I am appalled at you dragging your beef with another feminist into our discussion.
I don’t know what Sarah was talking about because i wasn’t part of that conversation. If you still have some resentment over that, I suggest that you address the parties responsible.
Perhaps you need a course in Feminism 101, because you seem to be beating up some poor straw feminist pretty badly.
So, facts are up to a local vote.
*facepalm*
So, what what religious based creation story would you allow to be taught as fact?
Nothing stops them from doing that privately now. They state may not establish or cause de facto estabishment of religion. Which means all religions must be treated the same by the state. And atheism is considered a religion by SCOTUS for such purposes. The easiest way to avoid de facto establishment is to basically ignore all religion, but let people privately do their thing. The difference is a group of people gathering in a parking lot of the football stadium to have their unchristian prayer in public (see Matt. 6:6-6:8), or saying a prayer over the loudspeakers prior to the game. The former is private behavior, while the latter is de facto establishment. So says constitutional law.
Oh yes, I wanted to add, demanding an explanation from me (or anyone else who wasn’t part of that specific conversation) for what someone else said is just… no. Seriously. Don’t do that. Bad form. Irrational form.
We women, even those of us who are feminists, we do not share a hivemind, popular opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.
Talk to the Hon. John E. Jones III and see what he has to say.
sixdays:
And clearly you have a problem differentiating what constitutes the state from that which is personal.
A teacher hired to teach is now a representative of the state. A local government holding a vote to allow prayer in school represents the state. Students holding a prayer before class represent themselves.
Do you see the difference?
A teacher leading the class in prayer makes the prayer mandatory for other students. That is establishment of religion.
A secular society is no the same as a totalitarian one. Most totalitarian regimes on earth today are very religious.
Secondly, you realize that an elected schoolboard is part of the state, correct? The constitution doesn’t just apply to the federal government. It applies to all levels of government. Even schoolboards.
I guess you just don’t like the U.S. Constitution.
Essentially you are stupidly saying, that if a fuckwitted group of local religious bigots want to promote their religious idea of creationsim in science classes (a clear category error), they can do so according to the constitution. You need several citations:
Citations from the peer reviewed scientific literature showing creationsims is a scientific idea. After all, religion shouldn’t be taught in a science class.
and
Citations on constitutiional law, based on SCOTUS decisions, showing you are right.
I’ll be waiting for real evidence, not inane opinion.
sixdays:
You realize this is already allowed, correct?
It seems you don’t know what the word secular really means.
Kacyray seems to have problems with every group he encounters: he complains about the “snobby” chess club, being attacked by feminists on another blog, being attacked here because the hivemind made The Horde do it… Kacyray is simply a pretentious idiot who thinks he’s a genius–and when scores of intelligent people tear apart his ridiculous positions, he gets upset. The tone-trolling alone marks him as a childish cretin. (If he were truly intelligent, he’d LEARN from Teh Horde.)
So, Kacyray “love[s] women” but dislikes most feminists. Hmmm. I guess he can only get along with Proper Laydeez who don’t argue with him. Fucking moron.
Horde: I love you. I haven’t been participating much lately because I’m going through a tough time, but I still read religiously (heh heh). I wish I could bake you all cookies or something. Anyway, thanks, as always, for your continued brilliance in fighting the good fight.
Are there multiple people posting under the name sixdays? It’s the only way I can reconcile
with
…oh, wait. I’ve got it. Sixdays, do you think “atheist” means “wants all religion to be illegal”? Because it doesn’t. At all.
That 10% causes me to argue against causes I agree with…and this stance somehow doesn’t contradict the idea that I care about said 90%
Sixdays is a very confused individual. It clearly has no idea of the constitution, how the first amendment has been interpreted by SCOTUS, and no idea of what the establishment clause means legally. Or how the fourteenth amendment put the bill of rights upon not just the federal government, but also the state and local governments. No level of government can ignore the establishment clause, or how it is interpretted by SCOTUS. It appears to hae taken a good hallucinogen.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
United States Constitution, XIV Ammendment:
(my bold) Making a law mandating that public schools teach religious doctrine is denying ‘equal protection of the laws.’ You, a Christian, want to force everyone, Christian, Jew, atheist, Muslim, Shintoist, Taoist, Buddhish, Jian, etc. to learn your specific creation myth, treated as fact, in science classes. This is illegal and has been found so by multiple courts. Whether you call it creationism, intelligent design, or any other idiotic name used to disguise it, it is still teaching a very specific religious dogma as fact.
Again, the Constitution is not a religious text. The ten thousand different Christian sects can each interpret the bible their own way. Each Christian can interpret the bible however they want. You cannot do that to the Constitution. What the words actually mean is not determined by religious sects but by the courts.
And please, I beg of you, tell me why I, as one who is willing to live under the law of the land should leave while you, one who is not, gets to stay?
Ing: He’s such a moron, eh? This is someone who is truly blinded by his own privilege. I have a feeling his attitude toward feminism actually goes something like this: “Sure, I believe in ladies’ rights and equality but only when they’re not all, like, nasty and insistent about it.”
Nerd:
Funny thing is, it doesn’t take a SCOTUS ruling to realize the only way to avoid establishment of religion is to keep religion out of the official public sphere (that is, “government”) entirely. The only way to respect the first amendment is to maintain a secular society.
I think sixdays confuses “secular” with “atheist.” For some reason, xe doesn’t seem to grasp that “secular” is pretty much just a restatement of the establishment clause — “existing independently of a religious basis.”
It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp, really. Yet xe keeps conflating “secular” with things like atheism and totalitarianism, as if the only way to argue against a secular society is to strawman the idea of “secular.”
@Ogvorbis:
I never mentioned mandating the teaching of creationism in the classroom. I talked about allowing teachers to bring up the subject of creationism and creationist ideas, sympathetically or otherwise, as part of good science education. This does not violate your rights under the 14th amendment. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
@Nigelthebold:
No. The ACLU is dead against students and teachers being allowed a moment of prayer as part of the school schedule. They want no mention of religion or religious belief at all expressed in public schools. They are (liberal) fascists.
Nigelthebold asserted:
“A teacher leading the class in prayer makes the prayer mandatory for other students. That is establishment of religion.”
No. A chaplain holding a session of prayer in the military does not mean that it is mandatory for all soldiers to join him. As long as students don’t have to participate in the morning prayer meeting, and are not discriminated against for not doing so, then there is no problem at all. The atheist kids can do something else under the watch of an atheist teacher.
sixdays:
You are completely incorrect. The ACLU defends the rights of students to pray in school.
What they are against (because it’s unconstitutional) is the establishment of prayer as part of the official school program. What’s so hard to understand?
Here’s a scenario that is unconstitutional: as part of a graduation ceremony, the school has a pastor lead a prayer.
Here’s a scenario that is constitutional (and will be defended by the ACLU): the valedictorian (a student), as part of their speech, praises their god.
Here’s another unconstitutional situation: at the beginning of class, a teacher leads the class in prayer.
Here’s a constitutional example: before the beginning of class, a group of Christians gather in a corner and hold a prayer.
Here’s yet another constitutional example: before the beginning class, a group of Muslims gather in a corner and hold a prayer.
Do you see the differences between these examples? If you read the ACLU page I linked, you’ll notice the ACLU will protect the first amendment free speech rights of students, even to the point of protecting prayer. There was a big deal made of the ACLU defending Muslim students who prayed before class, but the Christian school administration tried to keep them from praying. What isn’t talked about by conservatives is the fact that the ACLU has defended Christians in exactly the same situation.
The ACLU merely tries to help enforce the Constitution. If that seems liberal to you, maybe it’s because the Constitution is a liberal document.
Wrong again fuckwitted idjit. Teachers, as agents of the state, can’t lead prayers, as that is establishment. Likewise, students can’t take class time to publically pray, as that is establishment. But, both teachers and students can bow their heads and silently pray almost anytime of the day in an unorganized fashion. Students can even meet before or after school to mentally masturbate together. That is appropriate private religious expression. There is nothing fascist about respecting the rights of others, as your freedom of religion is also my right to be free from your religion being forced upon me in any fashion. The fascists are those like you who would require everybody to express religion in the public square, by thinking opting out is an option.
Oh, and you haven’t discussed Matthew 6:6-6:8, where Jebus requires Xians to pray from the closets of their souls (in private, not in public, outside of the temple).
sixdays:
Why are you always conflating completely different situations?
A teacher holding a prayer at the beginning of class is nothing like a chaplain holding a prayer in the military. First, the military is a voluntary thing. Second, as someone who was in the military, I was never once required to attend a prayer. It wasn’t just optional to pray, I would have to go out of my way to attend the prayer. (This excludes the convocation at graduation from basic, which should be unconstitutional, but that’s a different situation.)
A teacher leading a prayer at the beginning of class is a completely different thing. Students have to be there.
You’re building a strawman that has nothing to do with my original statement. (Which, by the way, isn’t just an assertion: it’s a judgement by SCOTUS.)
Well, as if we didn’t already know that sixdays is an idiot, they go right ahead with a Glennn Beckian “fact”.
Sixdays, for you benefit: Fascism is by definition a right wing concept. Anyone who has studied history or political science will tell you that “liberal fascism” is an oxymoron– it means nothing.
Were you perhaps looking for “totalitarianism”? Do you know the difference?
As for your “fact” about the ACLU: put up or shut up. Where has the ACLU said that students cannot pray? (We have dealt with teachers praying in the classroom. When a teacher leads a school prayer, that becomes the state endorsing religion, with is illegal under the First Admendment. But, even though it has been posted in this thread, you have no idea what it means, do you? Moron.)
Sixdays
No. Wrong.
Did you miss the part where NigelTheBold carefully explained that the teacher is a representative of the state while in the classroom? It’s only a few comments up, at 143, check it out. Or is it that the concept is too a difficult one for you to master?
While the teacher is at home he/she is free to do what they like or pray to whomever they like. Or not, as the case may be. But the moment that a person is in an office with official state authority, like that of a teacher, they MUST, according to your Constitution, refrain from promoting ANY one religion over another. That includes leading a prayer.
Jesus grasshopping Keerist, I am in another fucking country and *I* manage to understand how this works in the US.
The old “the atheist kids can just shut up and/or leave if they don’t like that” isn’t even an argument, it’s base bogotry in the form discrimination based on (lack of) religious creed.
So if the teacher brings up creationism, not sympathetically but otherwise, this doesn’t violate the religious student’s first amendment rights? I’m finding it hard to believe you wouldn’t have a cow over a case like that. And exactly how is this good science? Please explain. We’d like to get a sense of your scientific knowledge.
Here’s the ACLU defending a student who passed out candy canes with religious messages. The school erroneously reprimanded the student, the ACLU took the student’s side.
It took ten seconds for me to find that, and it proves you’re either a liar or ignorant of what you’re talking about.
It’s not only bogotry, in fact, but also bigotry. (Why is it that one only notices spelling errors when the page is loading after you’ve hit Submit?)
sixdays:
So you’re perfectly cool with a Muslim teacher having the class turn to Mecca and pray to Allah, even if the class has Christians in it?
I sure am glad your god doesn’t give a fuck whether his believers are liars or just idiots, as long as they’re vehement about it.
Nonetheless, here are some counter examples that I’m sure you won’t bother to read: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression
What prayer meeting? A voluntary and constitution gathering outside of the classroom that breaks up prior to homeroom starting? Or, as you envision, the unconstitional one where the teacher essentially leads the classroom, and those who are offended must make an effort to remove themselves from the clasroom? If you can’t tell the difference, you are one stupid person.
I don’t care if you pray or not. But do so where it belongs. At home and at church/temple/synagogue. Not ostentatiously in public which Jebus decries in Matthew 6:6-6:8.
@sixdays:
(Emphasis mine)
Creationism isn’t good science. Creationism isn’t even science! It’s religion. It’s got no scientific merit to discuss in a classroom talking about science. A comparitive religions or philosophy class, fine, that’s good. But science? Fuck that noise.
Also, god helps those who help themselves, I guess. Pity he can send down his only begotten son to blah-fucking-idiotic-bullshit, but he can’t spare an ounce of Google-fu for his defenders.
Snoof, I once wrote something I call “Brownian’s Corollary to Poe’s Law”, which states: “A fundamentalist theist/creationist is generally incapable of producing a convincing parody of an atheist/evolutionist.”
As I wrote previously, “one needs to understand a thing before one can lampoon a thing. The naive lack of rigour which characterises the fundie and creationist positions makes them easily satirised, but by their very nature they render their victims unable to appreciate another’s way of thinking enough to replicate it.”
I was reminded of this when I saw sixdays’ ‘contribution’ to “Why I am an atheist.”
Gen Fury, I’m going to just say that I am adding “bogotry” to my vocabulary: it perfectly describes the fetid morass of bigotry and oppression that is being exhibited here and IRL by dominant groups everywhere. Good one!
Brownian
Yes. That was pitiful.
Brownian,
Sixdays’ contribution would have been funny* if it wasn’t so sad.
*Okay, maybe not “funny”. What’s the opposite of comedy? Tragedy? Yes, I think the word I was looking for was “tragic”.
Well, subtlety is not a trait that YHWH* is said to have, so why should his followers?
*I mean, of course, the OG YHWH who was always telling his chosen to smite this group and genocide that group. The modern version is all kinds of subtle, where at its most extreme, subtlety is indistinguishable from non-existence.
How nice that you were able to recognize the strategy! Indeed it is one way to address infantile whiners afraid that big bad feminism might mean a loss of his own privilege wah wah.
Sallystrange, Ogvorbis, Nerd. Antiochus, Gen Fury, carlie, michellefitzgerald and others have more than covered all the other ways you are a pathetic troll. You received more respectful treatment at their hands than you desrved- I just responded on your level and in kind. boo hoo (and thanks for the compliment! I dream of being a debater of the caliber of a sunday schooll grandmother! :-))
love this – kind of like gods, really!
You’re supposed to feel sympathetic for the subject of a tragedy. Travesty might work better
Why is it that conservatives, who pay lip-service to the worship of the Constitution, are so damned dead-set against the ACLU? The ACLU defends individual constitutional right! That’s it’s fucking mission.
So why are conservatives like sixdays here so damned dead-set against it to the point where they are willfully ignorant of what it does? Are conservatives pissed because the ACLU won’t let them violate the Constitution?
Yes
Kacyray #110 said
“I remember when I fell in love with the game of chess years ago – I tried to get involved with so many chess clubs, only to find that no matter where I went, any sufficiently large group of players had the same “feel” to it… they were all snobs, they were all full of themselves, and as much as I enjoyed the game, I just left with feeling that I’d be happier never to be around them again”
Can I suggest you take a step back and think about this statement? So you have a history of finding fault with groups of people? Have you ever considered that the problem might, at least in part lie with you? That your interpretation of the chess groups as “snobs” might be a reflection of your own perceived superiority?
You came into this group and very quickly became arrogant and insulting. You seem to think that only your views have merit and dismiss everyone elses.
You would not be the only person to come into this group and behave aggressively. This does not go down well. I made the same mistake as a newbie insulting the group and individuals because they were “being mean”. Of course the hypocrisy of this was soon pointed out and I was forced to think about my own behaviour. Personally, I find there a people on here whose views I dont agree with, and who I find overly aggressive on certain subjects. That is part of belonging to any group. You can either choose to engage them in rational debate or not say anything.
One of the first things I accused some members of this group of, was that they were like sharks circling newbies with different views. However, if newbies are going to come and “piss in the pool” perhaps they deserve a bite or two taken out of them
@sixdays #153
“I talked about allowing teachers to bring up the subject of creationism and creationist ideas, sympathetically or otherwise, as part of good science education.”
Oh you will be very pleased with a university colleague of mine then who uses creationism as an example of what science isn’t. It is a great tool for teaching critical thinking and the scientific method.
Kacyray:
KR: Look, all I’m saying is that every single chess player I’ve ever met insists the paladin moves in an ‘L’ shape. That is completely unreasonable, considering all other pieces must move in a straight line.
Chess Snob: I thought you said you know how to play chess?
KR: Yes. I’m quite good, actually. But stop changing the subject! Admit that you are all assholes. I refuse to be identified as a chess player, as I am primarily a rationalist. Also, too, ‘L’ shape moves violate all kinds of feng shui rules.
CS: Look. We gather here with one interest: chess. If you want to yammer on about other stuff, why don’t you go find a rationalists’ association?
KR: This is exactly the kind of snobbery of which I speak. I am speaking of chess! I agree with 90% of the moves in chess. It’s that last 10% which I cannot get behind, and make me refute the rest of the chess movement. ‘L’ shape indeed!
CS: That’s how it works. Really. You can’t just come in and change what other people have accepted simply because you don’t agree with the consensus. If you want to make up a game and call it KC Chess and the paladins can move only three spaces in a single direction, go for it. Just don’t expect anyone to play.
KR: You’re an exclusionary snob! I hate you! You just can’t deal with new ideas.
I don’t want to have to say it again, mikee: less filling*, and that’s that.
*I think this reference may be older than the earth according to sixdays’ foolish beliefs.
Because the conservatives have an imaginary Constitution that changes depending on what they want to defend or support.
A.R:
Y’know, that makes a helluva lot of sense.
Kind of like their God’s wishes.
NigelTheBold
Perfect 10. Will LOL again.
Brownian,
Sorry, Brownian, a bit slow this morning, not sure I get your point.
Also in quoting just one sentence of what I said, it takes it out of context. What I said was:
“Personally, I find there a people on here whose views I dont agree with, and who I find overly aggressive on certain subjects. That is part of belonging to any group. You can either choose to engage them in rational debate or not say anything.”
In any group, I dont expect to agree with everyone or like everyone (though there are a lot of people here I do like for their intelligence, wit and courage). The reason I visit is to see new ideas, new approaches to arguments and to keep informed about what is happening with atheism and related issues around the world.
mikee:
Psst! mikee! Brownian was being facetious. ’cause that’s what he does.
My fault: poorly written joke based on an outdated meme about a great controversy.
Brownian:
Ah. Kids these days. Where’s the beef? KnowwhatImean, Vern?
*sigh. I feel very, very old right now.
It’s all too true. But I’m sorry for detracting from your comment with my tomfoolery, mikee. I agree. Well said.
It worries me that I know what you’re talking about, Brownian. Of course, I first became aware of the controversy in sixth grade gym class, and had no idea what it was actually about, so I guess I’m not THAT old…
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that…
I’m feeling left out, so:
It’s a breath mint!
I always went for the uncola-nut myself.
Fun fact: besides having one of the most gorgeously rich voices in television history, Geoffrey Holder is one of those individuals for whom the only artistic media he has not excelled at are the ones which he has not yet tried.
Oh dear, I suspect these are American culture references I’m not familiar with. Thank goodness for Google which has now informed me about Miller Lite, Candy mints and Uncola nut commercials :-)
If someone had said “Where’s the beef”, that is at least one reference that has made it to New Zealand.
Here is an NZ ad for you
mikee, we sent you Ichthyic. He was supposed to catch you folks up.
Anyway, I apologise again, but being Canadian I have no choice but to be immersed in American cultural references. (I’m sure all the kiwis here know exactly what that’s like.)
If the GOP is the party of the rich and studies may show that the rich are more likely to cheat…
That sounds almost word for word what one of my redneck fundie cousins wrote me (along with the usual tripe about moving to Cuba or China) when I came out atheist during an email “debate”–by debate I mean I used facts to point out how they were wrong while my mothers side of the family and their eaualy right-wing friends hurled insults and signed me up for Christan spam lists to “save me”–over church/state seperation. “I hope the authorities know about your activities,” he wrote.
What “activities” would those be?
Is this atheist-need-to-be-watched meme something common among the Bible -humpers?
You got your peanut butter in my chocolate!
It came on the radio this morning that today is Atheist Pride Day. This was followed by the two radio hosts saying “I don’t see how you can celebrate not believing in something” and “They just do it to annoy those that do believe”
Talk about a perfect example of “ignorance being propagated by silence”!
So I have written to them to explain what atheism is all about. A small action but hopefully it will make them think next time the talk about atheism.
Kacyray:
Beware any man who claims that he “loves women,” even before he goes on to say that he’s not down with equality. Liking to fuck women, look at women, or listen to our cute li’l voices while we babble about shopping and babies != liking women, and certainly not loving women.
Yes, all feminists are notoriously one hivemind, especially on issues of sex work.
Probably because we won’t flutter our lashes at you, put on an apron and make you dinner, then suck your dick.
Do you like your women the way you like your hamburgers, by any chance – consumable and silent?
Yeah, it must really chafe your ass to hear the reality that the world isn’t a level playing field for most of us.
Sally:
Snort. Yes.
Nigel, Brownian, Caine: I totally get those ad references. :)
Here are some from my childhood:
“Sometimes you feel like a nut…”
“Wearin’ my Levis…”
And if anyone knows who Toppie Smellie is without googling it, I’ll buy you a drink. (For those who are curious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovtRGZ9fZX0)
Hey, a fine display of parallel troll-handling! Randian and Christian trolls each striving to be more ludicrous and whiny than the other, and expert Horde troll-handlers such as SallyStrange, Ogvorbis, janine, nigelTheBold… on hand to corral and despatch them!
No time to take part, as its 1:45 here.
Oops, I meant to say Carlie (peanut butter & chocolate reference) instead of Caine in my comment above. Ahh, you feminists all look alike…
Nigel, that chess club convo was pure LOL-brilliance. You win the Internets today. (And bravo for your other posts, too.)
I know kacyray hasn’t said anything for a little bit but I can say with a great deal of confidence that I’ve known more, talked to more, attended more, visited more, feminist whathavesyous then he has and in allllll my years of experience (Hey I’m young so I’ve got 10 years at it) I’ve literally never heard a woman once suggest that men need to bend over backwards to hamper their natural abilities where a woman doesn’t have the advantage. He uses the NFL as an example. If a woman is able to hold her own against other NFL players then I’d be all for her playing, but because of a variety of reasons (physical, social, mental (meaning women are likely to be less willing to damage their bodies and minds for short term gain like being in the NFL, not because they’re mentally weaker :P)) it’s unlikely any woman is going to even express interest in joining the NFL and also less likely physically able to keep up.
I keep hearing about these mean ‘feminazis’ that are the ‘bad feminists’ yet I never actually -meet- any of the people who are you know… like that. I don’t just mean from my opinion, I mean in general. I don’t hear feminists saying all men are evil, like… ever. I don’t hear any feminists saying all sex is rape (Though I hear a fair amount of MRA types saying that feminists say/believe that). So I’m entirely baffled when people keep talking about ‘those mean feminists saying mean things about men!’.
Well, to be fair, some proment radical feminist theorists of the 70s (second wavers, including Andrea Dworkin, mainly, but I think also Catherine MacKinnon and others) theorised that the way society structures sex, as something that men need to GET from women (or in more modern parlance, the “transactional” model) is made inherently “rapey” from the outset, by the relative power imbalances – remember, back then, marital rape wasn’t even recognized as rape yet, equality in (or even access to) the workplace was still an active battle for just the basics and many women felt they often had no other choice but to “give in”. Basically, that it is highly improbable, almost impossible, to get/give consent that is entirely divorced from social pressures, expectations and imbalances.
That is not the same as saying all sex is rape, obviously, since any thinker with more than two braincells to rub together and follow an argument with can see.
It’s to say that the societal constructs surrounding especially the act of PIV sex (and has for many millenia) is problematic and needs addressing.
They analyzed social structures and contexts regarding sex, sex work, prostitution etc. and the structures of power that have an influence on how women perceive/experience these structures.
It’s all very theoretical and highbrow, and while I do not necessarily agree with the argument, what I’ve read about it (from Dworkin, specifically), is well-founded, well argumented and makes sense.
I just need to also add that the radical feminists (MARY DALY), even to today, while they may have some good arguments etc. on *some* issues, have a notoriously bad record w.r.t. trans rights and issues which I most certainly oppose in the strongest sense possible. Once again: feminism – not a hivemind).
Also, one of them (Dowrkin? or was it someone else) once wrote a novel. Yes, a work of fiction. In which a character whose daughter was recently raped said something like “men are rapists and that’s all they are” or something. A character. In a book.
Manboobz has a great list called Factchecking a list of hateful quotes from feminists and there’s a more comprehensive list with debunkings of those that need debunking here although I’m not too fond of the hand-waving “It’s Dworkin, she was crazy” kind of rhetoric.
Yes she was extreme, and no I do not agree with everything she wrote/said/thought (no hivemind, remember) but she did make some important contributions to feminism and her inflammetory rhetoric in general *forced* people to sit up and pay attention to what she said. Kind of almost like gnu atheists tactics on overdrive.
A “kraken” of atheists?
Which is the same way Christians treat the bible.
Since they think the US is a Christian Nation, yes.
When did I become an expert? Is there a certification process?
And I had to bow out because of electrical work involving a damaged power pole. No internet for quite a while.
That’s because they are made of straw and tend to blow away in just a breeze of reality.