YouTube is generally a blighted mess for atheism — but I’m seeing more people pushing back (but the comments there are still full of fulminating argle-bargle from the usual noisemakers). Here’s an example:
I do want to mention one thing I see a lot. You’ve heard it: tell a self-labeled proud atheist that they should value equality and other progressive ideals, and the immediate rebuttal is “Atheism just means I don’t believe in god. Go be a humanist if social justice is your thing.”
Humanism is not your get-out-of-jail-free card. The existence of humanism does not mean that calling yourself an atheist exempts you from all responsibilities to normal human concerns — you don’t get to foist off all the obligations involved in being a functional member of a healthy society on those humanists over there.
It’s as if they’ve carried the negativity of the minimal definition one step further: atheism means disbelief in god, and disbelief in any concept of social justice. We’ve been making some great strides in improving the cultural perception of atheism over the last decade, but there are still way too many atheists who are committed to associating atheism with sociopathy.
And they all seem to be hanging out on YouTube.
I truly believe that there are a number of atheists who are atheists less because of the “we don’t believe in gods” thing and more as an excuse to go around being a fucking douchebag with a superiority complex. The whole “I’m smarter than everyone else because I’m an atheist” crew.
Exactly. When Dawkins (God is a delusion) and Hitchens(Religion poisons everything) and Harris (Faith , especially Islamic faith – very bad) wrote their books , what they forgot was the one line summary – Take away religion and we will still be exactly as bad as before because disbelief only means we don’t believe in Gods – nothing more.
Or the people who gravitate to atheism because they don’t like being told what to do. This explains the seemingly large libertarian contingent.
From now on when i hear the “atheism just means not believing in gods, it doesn’t require moral values” usual bollocks, i’m going to answer with “atheism doesn’t require that you be a complete sociopathic arsehole, so as an atheist what excuse do you have to behave like one?”. Cheers PZ.
UnknownEric:
idahogie:
Way back when, I speculated that some atheists exist entirely because they are contrarians and don’t really have a concern with whether or not atheism is actually true. I guess that is related. I would just amend it today to remind myself than even the ones who care about truth and logic and the American Way can still ultimately want to turn everything into an intellectual pissing match or get some glee out of being Shocking and Offensive and Different. Honestly, I can’t say with certainty that I am beyond some of those urges….
I thought that atheists, who have rejected regressive theology, would have some sort of inoculation against regressive ideas like misogyny. However, many youtube atheists and their rabid fans have proven me wrong. That isn’t to say there aren’t progressive atheists on youtube. Steve Shives video on why youtube atheism needs feminism has over 3700 downvotes now. All for the mildly stating that youtube atheists need feminism.
if you don’t like atheist, then call youeslf atheist+ or progressive atheist or whatever, but why do you want to change those that indetify as just atheists?
atheist has a meaning, and this meaning does not include anything other than not believing in gods.
i see no rational reson to include anything other than what is already included in atheists, the peopel that do not believe in gods.
maybe if you can give some rational reasons why one should include preogressive ideas into atheism, what has it to do with atheism?
““atheism doesn’t require that you be a complete sociopathic arsehole, so as an atheist what excuse do you have to behave like one?””
i don’t.
“Take away religion and we will still be exactly as bad as before because disbelief only means we don’t believe in Gods – nothing more.”
correct. atheism doesn’t make you a good person, whatever that means for you.
i would reject the claim that atheism makes you a better person. why would it?
We want them to mature their views to allow for examining the net effects of the religion they don’t believe in on society. The rampant misogyny, abject selfishness disguised as liberturdism, etc. They show intellectual maturity when they acknowledge the equality of men, women, LGBT, people of color, and take their moral from that starting point.
Why don’t you just shut up if you don’t like our usage? That is what all dictionary defintionists should do. Be content privately, don’t force anybody else to believe what you believe. Instead, you must force atheist to believe in your amorality.
Aanthanur DC,
Where do you see PZ asking all atheists to identify as something else?
We’re talking about actions and behaviors.
Nobody is saying the word atheist should also mean “gives a shit about fairness”. We’re saying giving a shit about fairness should be important to people who call themselves rational and skeptical and are opposed to the ills of religion (which atheists like Dawkins, thunderf00t, etc) are. You can’t say one of the big issues with religion is misogyny and then say and do misogynist shit yourself. It’s a very simple concept.
@8 Aanthanus DC
Good for you, how about all the anti-feminist, racist arseholes that populate youtube, among many other places? Mind you, it is suspicious how important it seems to be for you that atheism as a movement doesn’t include progressive values…
Do you object to atheism being tied to skepticism, science or rational thinking? Do you raise the same objections of what atheism really means when these topics are promoted in atheistic circles or by popular atheists?
many do. many don’t, this has nothing to do with atheism.
that are things you find very important. but others might find it less important, or even do not agree with it.
i have met a homophobe Atheist, it was clear to me, he is a homosphobe and his “arguments” against homosexuality were totally irrational and i did not agree with any part of it.
But , he didn’t believe in gods. thus he was an atheist. i was not able to convince him that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. but he was an atheist, no matter how much i disliked the idiot.
“Why don’t you just shut up if you don’t like our usage? ”
why should i? you try to push your views into a group that has nothing to do with those vies, despite i propably agreeing with most of the views.
” That is what all dictionary defintionists should do.” what? just include the stuff you like?
“Be content privately, don’t force anybody else to believe what you believe.”
i don’t i would not even know how one could force someone to believe something he doesn’t.
” Instead, you must force atheist to believe in your amorality.”
what amorality? i did not say that equality is bad, or that i am agaisnt it, im not, i support LGBT rights and speak out against homophobia and bigotery whenerver i come across it, in my country it often is bigotry.
i don0t think i am amoral. but my morals don’t come from atheism. as it has no moral values or views. and doesn’t need any. i have my own.
many topics, that are important have been mentioned. but the single most important topic for me, is not mentioned, if we want to birng in any otehr things into atheism, i would suggest iti is what i find the most important topic there is for our generation, and the next one.
Anthropogenic Global Warming. for me, there is no other topic that even comes close to the importance of AGW.
and despite this being the topic i spend almost all of my free time on. there are atheists that do not accept AGW.
and that is not even a subjective topic, it is a objective evidence based topic. and is of the highest importance to all humans on this planet (also those on the ISS :D )
so it seems you don’t want AGW to be included in Atheism. and because you asked my why i have to force atheist to believe in my amorality, i have to ask you, why do you deny AGW?
@ saad
i get the impression that when i call myself Atheist here on this blog, i must also accept feminism, lgbt rights etc etc.
but to me, atheism menas only one thng, doesn’t believe in gods. it tells you nothing else on this topic, not even that the person is rational, e could be an atheist for irrational resons. yet he is an atheist.
Anthanur DC:
Well, there’s two questions entangled here, with two different answers.
1. Why not call yourself Progressive Atheist or Atheist Plus?
I believe some have tried. To a degree, it is about a fight for the main “atheist” label. You slap additional labels on it and suddenly people think you are a subset of atheist, an atheist with an asterisk, with caveats.
Example: Why have your group be the Progressive Christians, while the conservative Christians just get to call themselves Christians? It just concedes that progressive is the exception, and the conservative ones are the “real” ones.
Not that this is really that serious of an issue, but I’m just saying.
2. Why do you want to change those that identify as just atheists?
For many people, we don’t want any actual changes. Merely the acknowledgement that atheism doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Which is mostly just a desire to resolve a common debate. But there are several people we do want to change: asshole atheists. It would be self-evident why we want those people to change.
And one final issue to tie the two topics together:
You have actor and reactor backwards. That isn’t a judgment. That is a common issue for people who come in trying to figure out the situation in the atheist community. It is very common to view progressive atheists, in trying to link atheism to progressive goals, as trying to essentially kick out non-progressives. To view regressive atheists as a shunned and victimized group, faced with exile. This happened even with the creation of Atheism +, a clearly defined subgroup of atheism that was explicitly progressive and was, by its very nature, NOT attempting to say that atheism necessarily entails support of social justice. The reality is that this has all been occurring during a debate in the atheist community over its treatment of women and minorities: it being dominated by white male voices, its horrid harassment policies and serial harassers (or even rapists), its contingent of privileged white males defending the status quo. That is the context in which resisting “redefining atheism” occurs. Many insist that we should care about feminism, while others retort “atheism says nothing about that”. No, atheism doesn’t, but the underlying reasons why you may be an atheist, whether it is moral disgust at the excesses of religion or whether it is a rational/skeptical toolkit, should lead you to the place where you give a shit about the equal treatment of women. The initial push has always been against women, against racial minorities, against LBGT, against anyone who dares care about anyone aside from straight white middle class cis men. And then progressives decided to push back, and it is all re-imagined as social justice warriors on the offensive. The first push is always ignored, because it is the “norm”. The pushback is novel, a change, so it is the one that gets everyone’s attention and gets all the uproar.
That may seem like a tangent, but it changes the context of it all. People see this as social justice warriors trying to steal and redefine atheism. In reality, it is progressives trying their best to stop entitled regressives from continuing pushing women, minorities, and “social justice warriors” out of atheism, either intentionally or as a consequence of the way in which they are abused.
No, atheism doesn’t make you a better person. Rejection of religion does remove at least some of the rationalizations by which assholes can justify their assholiness, so on that basis one would expect that widespread adoption of atheism would result in some degree of reduction of the general level of assholiness in our culture.
Alas, some atheists manage to find other rationalizations to justify their assholiness, or even just revel in their assholiness sans rationalization, so the operative term is very much “some degree of reduction” rather than “elimination”. Am inclined to think that widespread adoption of atheism is worthwhile even so.
I personally see no reason why one must enroll humanism into atheism to be a proper atheist. Like many, I consider atheism to be just the lack of belief in god(s). In itself, this position makes no statement about whether one is ALSO a SJW or just a humanist or some variety of jerk. One can be an atheist and a SJW, or an atheist and a humanist (that would be me). Or one could be and atheist and a jerkwad.
True, being an atheist does not exempt me from responsibility in how I conduct my life. I leave guidance for such conduct to my humanism. But I don’t see why one must be an athumaneist (is that a word?) or else I’m doing it rong.
“Good for you, how about all the anti-feminist, racist arseholes that populate youtube, among many other places?”
speak out against them. debunk their nonsense claims. argue with them, don0t watch their videos, ignore them, do whatever you see fit, aslong its withing the laws.
“Mind you, it is suspicious how important it seems to be for you that atheism as a movement doesn’t include progressive values…”
that might be for you.
and it is important for me.
while i do support all the things mentioned, for example, i think feminism is important and while in the first world, feminists have changed our societies for the better , the fight is not over.
also LGBT rights are very very important. i see much more homosphobia than i see sexism in my region. and it makes me extremely angry and speak out against it wherever it is, agaisnt whomever it might be.
but that has nothing at all to do with atheism.
i also welcome religious people that support LGBT rights but dislike my atheism. for me the rights of the LGBT community is far more important than my atheism.
We want you to change because you’re stupid assholes.
It means a person who doesn’t believe in gods. People shouldn’t be stupid assholes. Ergo, atheists shouldn’t be assholes.
Is that syllogism stupidly simple enough for you?
Anything implied by the nonexistence of gods is by definition a reason to “include” those things. Because they follow from it. That is the sort of thing we use reasoning to establish.
Maybe you should listen for all of the numerous answers people have given over the centuries, rather than preach at us then eventually vanish back into the wretched pit you must live in.
You need a rational reason for everything else. But not that. Oh, heavens no, not that. You don’t give a fuck about rationality, so why pretend as if you do?
Indeed, humanism has little to do with atheism as Pope John Paul II considered himself a humanist, too.
But one would think that atheism, with no supernatural framework to turn to, would look to humanism as a way to help determine how we should treat each other. How else can we figure out what is “good” and “bad” if we don’t look to ourselves and contemplate what it means to work for the common good in the here and now?
Why on earth would anybody seek to deny humanism just because they’re an atheist?
The mistake is believing that rejecting the idea that atheism “just means X” means that you then are arguing that atheism gives morals A, B, and C. No. There are two issues here:
Atheism is a position arrived at by other means. The means by which you become an atheist will also lead to other beliefs. A contrarian atheist raised in a conservative religious household will likely not adopt mainstream conservative ideas. An atheist reliant on skepticism will usually not believe in bigfoot and aliens and ghosts (though there are certainly exceptions). An atheist that rejects religion out of moral indignation (say an ex-Catholic disgusted by the child molestation cover-up and the history of the Crusades), will likely not turn around and slaughter unbelievers and cover-up abuse.
Atheism means lack of belief of gods and lack of religion. Atheism will then tend to lead to certain political positions because of the fact that the contrary political positions are either 1. supported by religious “logic” or 2. exist only to reinforce religious privilege.
All of this leads to stats about atheism we are well aware of. Atheists disproportionately support gay marriage and support legal abortion. They also are strongly in support of separation of church and state. They are “socially liberal” because social conservatism is explicitly religious. Which is also why so many atheists go libertarian: economic conservatism is not explicitly religious so it is fair game.
These are all tendencies. Probabilities. Nothing in human thought processes, political affiliations, behavior, etc. are absolute.
(Note: an argument about feminism specifically could be made in the vein of gay rights and abortion. Sexism in our society is viewed as mostly derivative of gender roles set by Christianity. Rejection of Christianity would entail rejection of those gender roles much in the same that it would lead to support of gay rights and abortion rights. It is very messy though because those gender roles are so ingrained in culture that they aren’t clearly of Christian origin, and because even rejection of traditional gender roles can still lead to the “sex positive” misogyny that one can readily find among young men such MRAs, PUAs, and other men with a frat house mentality.)
“cis men”
what is cis?
You don’t understand. Those are values that we need to encourage among atheists, because they are good ones to have. Nobody is making any claim that disbelieving in gods makes you skeptical, science-oriented, rational, progressive, or whatever else. You cannot say “I found a non-skeptical atheist” and reasonably expect that this refutes the claim, since we’re not making that claim. It is a strawman or at best confusion about the reasons we’re having conversations like this at all. We’re not having the conversation you thought we were having. So can we go on having the other one, or is this not over for you yet?
Who’s denying humanism? But why can’t atheism mean the same thing? Humanism has its own problems. Those who wish to be dictionary atheists can always say “I’m an amoral atheist, not one of the moral one”. I detect real paranoia that they don’t want to admit their failings.
I wrote a long rambling comment, but consciousness razor got it right with this short bit:
Aanthanur DC:
Cis is the opposite of trans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
Beatrice:
No solidarity with my long rambling comments, huh? I see how it is :P
Humanism doesn’t comprise all of secular moral philosophy. It just doesn’t. Read some books about that if you want.
But assuming we’re not talking about Renaissance humanists or various other kinds of humanists, then secular humanism is an extremely specific movement (a very recent one) that’s mostly associated with atheists, agnostics and some of the more progressive religious denominations. It certainly doesn’t just mean “looking to ourselves” to find answers. That’s what any moral philosophy does, if it doesn’t rely on arbitrary authorities, scriptures (another kind of authority), dogmas from an institution or divine mandates. Ancient Greeks did that, and your views have no more in common with theirs (slaveholding genocidal anti-democrats as many were) than you do with Donald Trump or Creflo Dollar or anyone else you care to name who isn’t a humanist.
“We want you to change because you’re stupid assholes.”
Atheists are stupid assholes?
“It means a person who doesn’t believe in gods. People shouldn’t be stupid assholes. Ergo, atheists shouldn’t be assholes.
Is that syllogism stupidly simple enough for you?”
why are you so agressive?
i also think, people shouldn0t be assholes. i also think you should stop being such an asshole to me.
we just have a slight difference in poinion, no need to get so agressive.
you got problems with anger management?
“Anything implied by the nonexistence of gods is by definition a reason to “include” those things.”
what ? why should that follow?
“Maybe you should listen for all of the numerous answers people have given over the centuries, rather than preach at us then eventually vanish back into the wretched pit you must live in.”
maybe it is too complex for you, but despite my opposition to inclue LGBT rights and Feminisms etc into atheism, does not mean at all i do not support LGBT rights or Feminism, equality etc etc.
“You need a rational reason for everything else. But not that. Oh, heavens no, not that. You don’t give a fuck about rationality, so why pretend as if you do?”
i have a rational reason to not behave like an asshole, because i don0t like when people act like an asshole towards me.
but i don0t take every disagreement as a personal act or the other side of the debate acting like assholes just because we do not agree on something.
what is your problem? why are you so agressive and why do you act like an asshole towards me?
anteprepro,
*solidarity fist bump*
@ anteprepro
thanks, didn’t know the word. very usefull. there is no german word for it :) my 1st language.
Aanthanur DC,
Some atheists are stupid assholes, it would be to everyone’s benefit if they stopped being stupid assholes.
Thanks Beatrice, lol.
Aanthanur DC: That’s interesting for me, because usually I am hearing German words that have no English counterpart.
Interesting aside for me to ramble about: First learned about cis and trans as descriptions of relative position in Organic Chemistry. Latin origin for those terms. Related concepts? Entgegen and zusammen. German origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism
Trippy.
Those arguing that atheism is “just a lack of belief in gods” are silently adding the words “and that doesn’t have implications about how society works.” Centuries of ingrained behavior “because god says so” mustn’t be questioned.
I think the Psalm’s term for such folks is “fool.” They say it “in their heart” but don’t change their outward behavior to match.
Yes, some are. That should change. You asked why we want that, and that is the simplest and most answer I think I could give.
If you wanted to ask a different question, then you shouldn’t have asked that one. Probably taking more time to type and edit would help too. But thinking about what you write first is more important — I’ll happily wade through typos and bad grammar if it’s going to be worthwhile.
What do you think it does mean, that you think it shouldn’t be “included”? What is the significance to you, of including it or not including it? What do you think the problem actually is, if you still have one, now that it’s been clarified to you that you were arguing with a strawman?
Aanthanur DC
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
It makes comments with quotes easier to read.
You seem to be capable of using upper case and spaces.
Try that, too.
Otherwise some of us might think you’re an asshole.
1. Aanthanur DC is new to the blog, and most likely to new to this kind of discussion.
2. English is Aanthanur DC’s second language.
3. This is largely just debating “the definition of atheism” because Aanthanur DC seems to have no issues with the social justice/progressive goals we would want associated with atheism:
Could we tone down the hostility perhaps?
@Beatrice
“Some atheists are stupid assholes, it would be to everyone’s benefit if they stopped being stupid assholes.”
totally agree :)
After he tones down his. If he was truly for equality, he would have no trouble attaching it atheism, or caring if saying he was an atheist would also imply he was for equality.
@Randomfactor
do you believe there are objective morals?
@chigau
some already think im an asshole anyway :)
and that blockquote stuff takes too long sorry. i think ” ” works just as fine. did so for years on other platforms :)
Aanthanur DC @31:
It appears to exist, though perhaps is not well known: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
The words “Zissexualität” and “Zissexuelle” also seem to be used.
Of course, even in English-speaking countries, most people who haven’t dealt with trans issues are unfamiliar with the term, too.
maybe it is just my fear that at some point i don0t want to identify with that group anymore.
in politics for example i do not identify with any political party.
i am closest to greens, but because they are so agaisnt GMO and nuclear energy, i don’t want to identify with them.
like alot of the social democrats approaches, but disagree with them wanting to join the EU and their overspending.
everything right to them is to bigoted and nationalistic.
i usually don’t call myself a feminist, for two reasons, i don’t deserve it as i am not really actively doing anything besides verbally in real life (no protesting, no referenda , no videos etc) but also because there are feminsits that i do not agree with, that i think that are far too radical and aggresive. and they are so loud. many people think of them when they hear the word feminism.
and i fear that the same might happen when you include alot of stuff in atheism. atm i might agree, with the things that get included, at some point i might not anymore.
but i have no problem when atheists on yt for example make videos that voice their support for LGBT rights or equality etc. actaully most videos i watch from YT atheists are about such topics. when they are not specifically about religion and gods.
@AMM
aah thanks. i failed at scepticism :D because there was no link to german on the first wiki link i got , i concluded we don’t have a word for it :)
and then i just realized that the word i would have used could be understood as very offensive.
but i never had to use it luckely.
Aanthanur DC:
I do, and I think this is a legitimate point to raise here. I saw that you appeared to claim otherwise in one of your first comments.
“Human nature” is not a term I’d use, because it’s so loaded with bad ideas historically…. And that also isn’t the only kind of factor we ought to be concerned with. However, it’s maybe useful as a simple kind of distinction for now, if you feel like talking that way. I’d rather avoid it. The basic point is that there are facts about people, just like there are facts about AGW. We’re not in that sense different from the rest of the universe.
Some of those facts (along with many others, like what’s happening with the climate) are relevant to moral decisions we make. Some have to do with what causes a person pain or pleasure, what impedes their success at things which don’t cause anyone else harm, what a person is responsible for, what they can or cannot do, what works in a large society of people or for the whole planet, or various other things like that. These are not things that somehow I could subjectively decide, all on my own, independently of everyone else. I have no idea what it could mean to say that’s subjective, that it’s just my opinion or that they’re all equally good — or that somehow that those aren’t relevant and fundamental to morality itself, or even that morality is just some meaningless garbage we can ignore. In any case, what could you think it’s about, if it’s not stuff like that? I really don’t know.
Plus, if your decisions aren’t based on some set of facts you think you know about the world, like a person’s actions or a situation, then what exactly are you basing your decisions on? Where do they come from, some magical place in the sky? Are they based on nothing at all? If so, why should we think competent and reasonable moral decisions will work that way? How is it not an obvious recipe for disaster? Do you not make such decisions at all? Whatever it is, how do you live this way, in practice?
If not, then exactly what disagreement do you have with the idea that some such things are true, objectively so, just like psychological facts are objective facts about humans including the one that we are in a technical sense “subjects”? Is there some non-trivial point here that’s being made, which I just don’t get somehow? Would you say that “it is not true that murder is wrong”? If not, then what does it mean? How are we supposed to understand your idea, that it isn’t objective, isn’t truth apt, not real, isn’t based on empirical input, or however you may want to put it?
Aanthanur DC At least you are being consistent with how you propose atheism, i’ll give you that. However, i and many others here disagree that atheism only means “x” because that presuposes that atheism is a belief that occurs in a vaccuum, that it is not informed nor does it inform other beliefs and that’s simply not true.
To quote your comment at @40, i personally don’t believe in objective morals as i think that morality is necessarily subjective, but i do believe that morality can and should be heavily informed by objective reality. This means that for certain moral positions, the field is significantly narrowed by what reality actually is. For example, my lack of belief in gods is tied to my acceptance of a natural universe. In turn, this informs my acceptance of scientific inquiry as the single reliable method to learn about the properties of reality. This does affect the way i derive moral conclussions, because i’m doing so whithin a context where i accept i and everybody else around me is a living creature, product of billions of years of evolution, sharing a planet with hundreds of thousands of other species, that it is up to us to govern how our socities should work, thatwe can only depend on each other, that the reality i experience has vast similarities to the reality every other human being experiences, etc, etc. So yes, my atheism does have an impact on my morality, how could it possibly not? It is not the sole determining factor, it’s but one significant element in the constellation of factors that shape the context in which i must dereive moral conclussions.
I think the problem here is semantic…nobody is arguing to change the definition of atheism….what’s being argued is the necessity to both recognise that atheism, in the context of all the other beliefs a person holds, has consequences, and that there is a serious problem with amorality whithin movement atheism that is being supported on the basis of negating any implications of atheism as a contributing factor to how people derive their morality.
Aanthanur DC
I see.
Well, if you can’t be bothered make your comments easier to read,
I can’t be bothered reading them.
Bless your heart.
a thought just occurred to me that “dictionary atheists” are just like “dictionary believers”
though you don’t hear the later ‘believers” singled out in the same way as often as you do atheists . They do not really define what or who god is supposed to be they simply believe in god. They do not think about the “deeper theology” of any particular religion they just take all of the cultural and societal judgments as given. They are deeply conventional.
same with the dictionary atheists they just do not question very deeply what belief and unbelief mean or imply. They are a part of the conventional order, an acceptable part, that does not threaten change in any way.
Rationalism (correct term?) and skepticism lead to disbelief in the reality of mythology which includes conventional beliefs in racial distinction, sexual inequality, hereditary authority and inherent class divisions along with all the other things that are directly connected with religion like god creating the universe.
that the distinction between the two is being highlighted is a very positive thing. The rational approach is not new and has been growing for a very long time in human terms some times atheism is more prominent some times it was underplayed. It is time to really ask those difficult questions, the protestations of those who accept the status quo indicate how close to home the questions are, and how irrational are the adherents in those beliefs .
uncle frogy
Wait a second. You’re doing with “feminist” what you seem to not want others to do with “atheist”.
Why don’t we put the dictionary battles aside?
If you want to engage someone and change their minds, you want to use their language.
The question shouldn’t be on meaning.
The question should be “Then why are you *only* an atheist?”
(Please excuse the derail from the vital discussions about English vocabulary and Correct blockquoting.)
My first reaction to reading the title of this post is: why? Why do we need more progressive atheists?
Frankly, if being atheist doesn’t have any (positive) effect on one’s behavior, why should I care about atheism? If it’s only about what you believe (or rather, what you don’t believe), how is it any better than those flavors of Christianity that are all about believing the right thing? (As opposed to doing the right thing.)
I don’t call myself an atheist because I don’t care whether anyone believes in a deity (or similar principle.) I care about what they do. And so far, the record of people who openly profess their atheism is not particularly good: Dawkins, Schermer, Mehta, Benson, etc. Not that all out-and-proud atheists are jerks (or worse), but neither are all out-and-proud Christians (or Muslims, or whatever.)
Ah, we finally get down to the problem. What is your problem Aanthanur DC with “radical” (whatever the fuck that means) feminists? Sounds like the typical problem certain males have with anybody female who isn’t subservient…..
AMM
Have a nice day.
AMM: Why are you even bothering to read this blog, then, let alone comment on it? You don’t have to care about atheism if you don’t want to, but why are you here, then?
@consciousness razor
very good points. strangely i agree mostly :)
and it is propably just semantics, but for me , objective, means it doesn’t depend on the general view of homo sapiens.
increase in CO2 concentration does cause a forcing on a planet’s climate system. that is true for every planet.
and there surely are facts about humans that are objective. but morals?
yes i agree murdering someone is wrong. among humans. from the view of let’s say another species that we almost drove into extinction. it is not really. (i don’t want to say any other species is thinking that complex or even knows it is near extinction)
morals are human centric or how ever you want to call it. they might (and must for me) include other species, but they are always comming from the pov of homo sapiens and and are towards our advantage (i don’t say that’s wrong,)
that makes them subjective for me.
but that is just words.
i do think we can and should work towards morals we generally agree on. we already do , how sucessfull can be debated, but we try with things like Human rights we try to establish globally.
i just don’t think the word objective is fitting.
and i don’t know how factual morals can be. on main things, easy. like murder. we almost agree on that globally.
but then. for example, i support abortion up to 3 month is into pregnancy, and later only in special cases, mostly in the interest of the unborn persons.
but how factual can that be?
for me it is based on expert opinion of when the nerves attach to the brain. after that i somehow consider it a person. and think we should not kill it. but how factual is that? i would call it rational. but would not incist, that is the way it is. that it is objectively so. a fact.
it gets very complicated in the details. so i do believe morals cannot be objective, even if every homo sapiens agrees.
is that just semantics?
@marilove
in what way?
PZ in the OP
But unwavering belief in the infinite wisdom the Invisible Hand of the Free Market is totally OK if not mandatory.
OK, I’m gonna nerd all over this thread so sorry in advance.
Saying: “Atheism just means disbelief in gods” is a bit like saying “Linux is just a kernel.” Yes, it’s technically true in a literal sense, but “humanist atheism” is referred to as “atheism” for a reason and making the literal distinction glosses over that reason without explanation. I want a computer that can connect me to the internet, which is why I installed GNU/Linux rather than just the Linux kernel on its own, and I want a set of beliefs that model reality accurately while providing a framework to create an optimal society to live in, which is why I support atheist humanism rather than dictionary atheism.
Pointing to the literal definition of the word used as a synecdoche does not explain why you reject the concept it stands for. It does not even attempt to provide such an explanation. Saying “atheism just means disbelief in gods” is a derailing tactic; it responds to the implied question: “why do you oppose social justice?” by trying to distract the questioner and/or audience lest the dictionary atheist be forced to reveal their inability to provide a valid answer.
AMM:
It doesn’t necessarily have an effect, as a matter of logic or because of some bizarre law of physics. That would be a really strange expectation for you to have about any ideology. There can be atheists who behave all sorts of ways. We don’t need atheism to cause good behavior. In whatever ways it might support good behavior, as a rational set of ideas about what the world is like, that is not something we should try to deny as dictionary atheists do. As atheists, it is something we should encourage and amplify and understand, because it’s conducive to good behavior. Likewise, if something has negatives, we have to confront that fact too. Or if regressive atheists make false claims which they think are implied by the nonexistence of gods, I certainly have reasons to care about rejecting their nonsense too.
Anyway, beliefs motivate actions. If you believe something false, your actions based on that belief will have unexpected results. This is a practical reason for caring about the truth, “believing the right thing” as you put it, whatever it may be. I would say that not praying for a sick patient but instead giving them adequate medical treatment, because you know the former doesn’t work since gods don’t exist, is a positive effect. Why would I say that? Because it is a positive effect. So, frankly, your premise is patently false, given a lot of incredibly obvious examples to the contrary, so the rest could’ve been dismissed before I went any farther. But it’s worth saying more than that.
Also, believing the right thing isn’t opposed to doing the right thing. We don’t need to choose one, at the expense of the other. A handful Christians might think this way, but I think you’re reading too much into it or trying too hard to make an analogy that has something to do with religion.
Besides, I see no problem (and certainly no resemblance to Christian dogmas about faith) with valuing truth or knowledge for its own sake. Maybe this sounds too pompous or high-minded. But we can be curious about the world or anything in it, even if that doesn’t have a practical application immediately or ever, and that is no kind of a problem. I care about the things I’ve learned — it makes my life more interesting. Maybe it’s not a reason why you should care, but that’s why I do. And it’s not remotely similar to believing in Jesus or whatever ridiculous things religious people go on about.
But homo sapiens isn’t a subject, and it doesn’t have a subjective anything. By that standard, every bit of science or math or whatever you like is subjective. We’re all brains floating in vats maybe, for all we know, since each of us has no other access to anything in the world (if there is a world or an us) besides our own subjective experiences. Who can be sure? But if that’s such a concern, why bother making the distinction, since it applies to literally everything? And could anyone take that kind of radical skepticism seriously for more than a minute?
If that’s not actually where you draw the line, then where is it supposed to be?
What are you talking about? I asked whether it’s true or false, or if you think it’s something other than true or false. If they could have a point of view about it, I expect they would see that by murdering a person you’re depriving the person of a life they want to live. Since it’s not true that we should treat murderers unjustly, and we also shouldn’t engage in collective punishment or blame anyone for something they had no control over, I don’t see a reason why they would think murdering a human is okay. They might want revenge and don’t care which human gets it, let’s say, but that’s not genuine moral reasoning at all.
Well, you’re wrong. Maybe you’re not thinking morally at all, and you merely think you are. You should be interested in the actually born person, which we tend to call “the pregnant woman,” who can rightfully claim autonomy over her own body, including when and why and how she makes those decisions for herself. You can’t force me to donate my organs, or spend possibly months away from work/school/whatever, in and out of hospitals to act as life support for them, even to a fully-developed adult, who actually has a life and loved ones who care about them very much. Not even if it’s a person I know and care about personally. Because it’s my own fucking body we’re talking about, there are always risks involved, and no one should be able to take that choice from me.
So let’s assume you’ve got a fucking genius inside the pregnant woman, with all the capacities of a fully grown adult straight white rich dude with lots of friends and great memories and everything going for them in life, never hurt a fly — it would still be a right a woman has, just like a man has, to not consent to that. Get rid of all of the stuff that makes that dude significant to you somehow, and put a fetus back in which in fact has none of it. How could your argument be any better then?
Aanthanur DC, #14
I think that’s the wrong impression.
You
mustshould support feminism and LGBT rights in general anyway, regardless of your belief in god. It would be like saying “when I call myself atheist, people expect me to support equality for black people.”The feeling of mixing atheism with feminism you may get here is actually in context of famous/influential/popular atheists who support a culture of sexism within their readership/followers/conferences/activist base.
anteprepro, #37
I was going to believe that, but then they posted this a few posts after you:
Aanthanur DC, #43
“They are so loud”?
That’s too familiar of a tone-troll tactic for me to take them at their word.
You apparently passed over it, but not supporting abortion doesn’t require any guesswork about whether they’re really progressive.
Whoops, I did miss that.
You fell into the trap most misogynists do. You used “radical” feminism to dismiss feminism per se, which is simply the equality of the sexes at the end of the day. You lose.
Has any of these “dictionary atheists” asked any of the anti-feminist atheists to stop injecting their politics into atheism? No? Hmmmmm… makes you wonder.
Feminist means one simple thing: Equality for women (and men). But you won’t call yourself a feminist because sometimes feminists act in a “radical” fashion, whatever that means. You don’t like the way some feminists act, therefore you won’t call yourself a feminist.
Oh.
*Feminism means one simple thing.
Aanthanur:
No, you mustn’t. But people around here tend to think everyone should accept those things, regardless of their opinions on religion, because the problems addressed by social justice activists affect everyone. They also think people need to have good, defensible reasons for their opinions, so, if you do happen to oppose feminism, LGBT rights etc., you should be prepared to explain why.
And here’s a quick tip: complaining about how “loud” some feminists might be is not a reason to oppose feminism. People say similar things about atheists (and they’re often right: atheists can be noisy and rude) but loud atheists don’t invalidate atheism. Personal discomfort at another’s behaviour is not a reliable indicator of the validity of that individual’s opinions. And in reality, sometimes being loud is the only way to draw attention to important things.
My take is this (and it’s not uncommon): atheists necessarily do not accept religious justifications or explanations for observed natural phenomena, cultural traits or behavioural trends.
– Therefore, when considering things such as morality, gender equality, social cohesion etc., we need to base opinions and decisions on observable reality.
– The reality in much of the world is that women are, in general, marginalised and even wholly excluded from full participation in many social, educational, professional and other sectors; the further reality is that this is not because they deserve to be due to inherent, female-specific deficiencies – it is because of many centuries of tradition (both explicitly religiously-based and otherwise) that prescribes certain roles to women and certain roles to men.
– Still further, it is apparent that this discrimination can not be justified by objective data and that men and women are equally capable across most sectors (and therefore equally deserving of recompense and reward) in any modern society.
– Therefore, it is unjust to discriminate against women or to prescribe “women-only” roles in that society.
– Feminism seeks to address this injustice; more broadly, social justice activism seeks to address whatever forms of discrimination and marginalisation exist. It’s not only women who suffer discrimination – men also do, as do indigenous people, non-white people, poor people and very often anyone not of a given society’s dominant religious, cultural or ethnic groups. Obviously the extent to which discrimination happens, and who it affects, is variable across societies, nations, cultures, etc. In some places, for example, simply being an atheist carries a death sentence. In others, being atheist is so common – or simply so irrelevant to a person’s perceived worth or wisdom – that it’s barely discussed.
– In Western, English-speaking societies, gender roles aren’t enforced by law (and these societies usually have laws explicitly forbidding gender discrimination), but they are nonetheless perpetuated by social and cultural forces, to the clear and measurable detriment of women. Any person concerned with facts and observable reality should be able to understand that; any person concerned with fairness should wish it addressed.
Noone’s saying you must be a feminist or supporter of social justice if you’re an atheist. They’re saying that if you’re an atheist who is concerned about reality and a fair society, you probably should be. And if you’re not, you should be able to explain why (again, without resorting to arguments like “some of those activists are very loud”).
Disassociating with a term because someone using that term did a bad thing is really poor logic.
An atheist shot up a school recently. Should we all stop being atheists?
No, because you recognise that person as an individual is responsible for their actions.
Somehow that particular skill vanishes in a puff of smoke when we’re challenging sexism?
@consciousness razor
this from wiki expresses it best.
” A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are “bias-free”; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject..”
“I don’t see a reason why they would think murdering a human is okay.”
because we almost drove them into extinction. so why should they see it as wrong, when it means more space for them. for example.
for them, it is maybe morally wrong that those two homo sapiens are there at all because actually. that is where their jungle was for example.
“but that’s not genuine moral reasoning at all.”
for them it might be.
“Well, you’re wrong. Maybe you’re not thinking morally at all, and you merely think you are.”
maybe we disagree about when it is ok to kill a person or from when on a person is considered a person?
no problem about debating abortion, but i think thats too OP here.
but i think, it just shows that morals are not objective at all.
“You fell into the trap most misogynists do. You used “radical” feminism to dismiss feminism per se, which is simply the equality of the sexes at the end of the day. You lose.”
i do not dismis feminism per se. but i also do not support feminism per se.
i support equality among all humans.
[Aanthanur, observing a civil rights protest in the 1960s America]:
C’mon. Get serious. You’re about to break the record for the quickest game of bingo ever.
Oxymoron moron…..Either women are your equals, or they aren’t. Make up your mind, and live with the consequences…..
” a reason to oppose feminism”
i don’t
“And in reality, sometimes being loud is the only way to draw attention to important things”
yes and when it is loud for not legit reason it draws all the attention away from the legit reasons.
being loud, doesn’t make you right.
but don’t asume i do not support equal rights just because i do not call myself feminist.
i did not call myself anti-feminsit.
well , when feminism only means, you support equal rights, then i am a feminist.
@Lesbian Catnip (aka Epic Username!)
Challenging religion is easy. It’s demonstrably incorrect on matters of fact and all-too-often wrong on matters of morality. If you’re not religious it’s trivially easy to distance yourself from religious pronouncements or misbehaviour. You can effectively deny personal responsibility.
Challenging sexism or any social injustice, however, is hard. On some level we all have to accept personal responsibility for it, even if we’re only passively benefiting from social inequality and not actively participating in it; we also have to accept responsibility for opposing it if we’re at all interested in an equitable society. Some people find it impossibly uncomfortable to admit that they’re even passively benefiting from inequality (perhaps, I suspect, because they know that implies they bear responsibility for addressing it); one of the routes to avoid that discomfort is to deny said inequality exists or to minimise it to a level of non-importance.
Aanthanur, quoting me:
And you don’t get to decide when people are right to be loud.
but i have an opinion about if they are right or not.
marilove @54
Precisely because this blog — and those other FtB blogs I follow — discuss social justice-y things I’m interested in. I don’t read the FtB blogs that are mainly concerned with proving there is no Ghod and the like.
Which was, in a way, my point. Note the presence of the word “if” in my comment.
A belief/philosophy/system of beliefs that is just about not believing in a god — and nothing else — is only going to be of interest to people for whom the important issue is whether you believe in a god or not. It’s not going to appeal to those who don’t think whether a god exists is an interesting question, which IMHO probably describes most of the people who don’t belong to a religion, at least in Western countries. Especially if they have bigger fish to fry — e.g., if they’re African-American and thus are kind of forced to consider racism a bigger issue than whether god exists. Black churches have historically helped black people resist and survive racism — are there any atheist groups that can say the same?
On the other hand, if you can convince people (including atheists) that there is a connection between not believing in a god (or not believing in god in your particular way) and, say, fighting racism, then atheism is no longer simply an abstract, otherworldly academic debating point.
In my case, I’m active in a Unitarian congregation. I don’t go there because of their Unitarian beliefs (to the extent they have any.) I go because they’re people who care about things that matter to me — racism, homelessness, climate change — and they seem to believe in treating people decently. (And they don’t demand I subscribe to a set of beliefs in order to be accepted.) If there were an atheist group whose atheism led them to act in ways I respect and to engage on issues I think are important, I would seriously consider going there.
@79
Obviously. But your opinion shouldn’t be based on how loud they are.
Everybody has an opinion, like they have an asshole. Sometimes nothing but smelly hot air comes outs….
Oh, Nerd, classing the place up as usual are we? Whatever folds your tortilla I guess…
Then try reading it carefully one more time. I know English isn’t your first language, but I don’t know another way to make it any clearer, besides telling you that a species, like homo sapiens for example, is not “a sentient subject.” It doesn’t feel and so forth. I do. You do. We do, as we are both subjects. Our species is not one.
You’re still not giving me a valid reason why it might be for them. If I did something wrong, even some very very wrong, it doesn’t follow that murdering me is okay. It doesn’t matter if you see it, or if a group of people see it, as okay to murder me because of that. Your own personal point of view wouldn’t change a fucking thing about it.
But look, perhaps they would have conflicting interests, just like much more mundane (and already known/understood) cases of people having conflicting interests. I’m making no claim that conflicting interests don’t exist. That’s simply not what it is about.
I explicitly said that it makes no difference at all if it were an adult human being, with all of the bells and whistles. People must be able to consent to what happens to their own bodies, no matter what you or I think about personhood or whether a fetus counts as one. That is what I said. Women are not baby-making machines. They are people.
Oh, I see. It isn’t objective, because you’re wrong but can’t reason your way out of a wet paper bag. So you’re not “really” wrong — we just differ. That’s convenient. Instead of admitting you’re wrong, you want to say it’s not possible for you to actually be wrong. Isn’t that about right? I don’t give a shit if you fucking disagree. I know very fucking well that people fucking disagree.
People disagree about AGW — what the fuck do you think that shows about it? What does the disagreement of those denialist bullshitters show, when they obstruct not just meaningful progress but any sort of coherent dialogue to even begin doing anything about it? Does it show there is no fact of the matter about AGW? Of course it fucking doesn’t. Maybe you shouldn’t embarrass yourself with this conversation any more, if you see that you weren’t prepared to even begin it. I certainly don’t have any need to repeat myself.
Ouch, I’ve been swatted with free speech, which includes criticism.
Compare this to Freeze Peach, where any opinion is immune to criticism. Misogynist believe in Freeze Peach, not free speech. Get it Aanthanur DC? You appear to want your opinion to be immune from criticisms….
What does this even mean? What cowardly, vague, passive language!
That’s what feminism is, point blank. How can you support what feminism is and yet not support it “per se”?
This is a great example of a classic “politically correct” statement!
You’re attempting to feign yourself as centrist or moderate on the subject of feminism, but it’s all a ruse.
Were you lying when you stated “I don’t support feminism per se”, then? Because if you don’t oppose feminism, then you DO support it “per se”.
You’re contradicting yourself here.
What are the “not a legit reason[s}” to be loud in the context of feminism, exactly? What do you mean by “loud” in the context of feminism? Explain yourself and your beliefs FULLY. Back them up. Back up your reasons for having these beliefs. Stop making statements and claims without explaining the REASONING behind those statements and claims.
I think Aanthanur wants to be seen as supporting equality without being associated with noisy feminists. Much like those self-styled “agnostics” who don’t hold theistic beliefs and who reject theistic claims, but nonetheless don’t want to be called “atheists” because some atheists are noisy. Well, a lot of atheists are blatant misogynistic arseholes (some to the point of making money off of it), but I can’t dissociate from them just because I’m not a misogynistic arsehole. Calling myself “non-religious” or “agnostic” won’t change the fact that I’m an atheist though.
Then again, Aanthanur, I could be wrong because I’m having trouble understanding precisely what you want and precisely what you’re objecting to, and it’s not because English is your second language.
Me:
For clarity: giving myself a different name won’t change the fact that I’m part of a group that contains noisy arseholes. I just have to include their shitty behaviour among that which I identify as unacceptable.
OK, Aanthanur DC, when I see someone making a whole series of comments in a row, and basically flooding a thread with comments, my troll alarm goes off. It tells me you aren’t putting much thought into your words, and are just popping off noise.
Stop it before I get annoyed. Think before you write.
wow, troll?
ok bye
bye
So very ironically politically correct…
I’m still waiting for the evidence of what is a “radical” feminist, versus the run of the mill feminist expecting full equality, both under the law an in actuality…..
Wow indeed – flounced at the mere mention of the “t” word!
Guess we were too noisy.
As long as we were not too strident…
“I’m still waiting for the evidence of what is a “radical” feminist, versus the run of the mill feminist expecting full equality, both under the law an in actuality…..”
feminists that chant stuff like “kill all men” and “rape culture” , demand that companies have the same number of woman as men in their management. that is what i see as radical feminists.
demanding voting rights, the right to serve in the army just like men, no pay gap based on gender. that is what i see as feminism.
“Wow indeed – flounced at the mere mention of the “t” word!
Guess we were too noisy.”
i am used to be called a troll from AGW deniers and creationists. but usually not from another atheist and from someone that i considered a sceptic.
ironicly i am too noisy for PZ when i asnwer several posts that are adressed towards me.
Aanthanur DC!
You’ve already been warned about flooding the thread with posts – just now, three posts in a row, when one would have served. You have already been shown how to fucking quote people, so take 2 seconds, and learn how to do it already – your replies are unreadable because you won’t quote. One more bloody time:
To Quote People In Your Replies, Use:
<blockquote>Paste Text Here</blockquote>
Jesus.
Aanthanur DC,
Warning, here goes unsolicited advice:
Take a breather.
You were warned by PZ, several commenters pointed out instances where you sound really ignorant but despite that you feel the need to share your opinions on the topics you are so ignorant about (like that bit in #97 about feminists who want* to kill all men being the reason you have reservations about feminism. Sure. And I have reservations about unions and workers’ rights because some factory worker somewhere wants* to kill all rich people. Contrast and compare.)
Lurk a bit, try reading a post or two about feminism and other social justice issues and then join the conversation again.
* for certain values of “wants” that very rarely correlate with actual desire for mass deaths, I’d wager
ok, this community is clearly nothing for me :)
have fun :)
Aanthanur DC #102 :):):)
clearly:(:):)
You don’t fit in.
;(::);)(
We has lots for you.
You just cannot learn.
Aathanur
Don’t blame us because you jumped in with a bunch of half-baked opinions you obviously weren’t prepared to explain or support.
And definitely don’t blame us because you don’t know how to answer more than one question in the same comment. Most people know where their “Enter” key is.
Finally:
First, rape culture demonstrably exists – though it might not mean what you think it means (which wouldn’t be surprising). Google it and see.
Second, who exactly is it that chants “kill all men”? Any evidence that this is anything but a tiny minority of extremely radical feminists would be appreciated.
Equating the supportable observation of rape culture with those who chant “kill all men” demonstrates in graphic detail that you can’t actually tell the difference between feminism and the far fringe of radical feminism. It’s like equating a moderate gun-control advocate with someone who wants to ban literally ALL guns. I’m going to do you a favour and assume this is out of rank ignorance and not dishonesty.
Whatever it is, you have no idea what you’re talking about – quite literally. Your understanding of feminism is so superficial as to be one-dimensional.
If you’re genuinely interested in feminism, do yourself a favour and read a bit about it before you jump feet-first into someone else’s conversation to tell them they’re all doing it wrong.
Oh, and (double post!), what the fuck is so radical about wanting more women in management positions? Your understanding of the word “radical” is as shallow as your understanding of the word “feminism”.
i was not prepared to explain? i took alot of time and wrote extensive answers to every post adressing me. and tried to make my positions clear as good as i can.
i had to explain myself to several peopele at once, and i was and still am prepared to do so.
if the problem is that i use one comment post for each comment i answer to, someone could have just said so, but instead i get warned for trolling…..
i don’t see why it should be seen as trolling when i answer posts adressed to me, and adress the points rised in them, but happen to use one comment for each comment i answer to.
“rape culture is a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.”
i don’t think that there is such a culture in my country for example. nor do i know any first world country that has that.
https://twitter.com/mortari/status/331732959566639105
for example.
maybe we just don’t agree when feminism goes over to radical feminism? i think the idea of rape culture is a fringe view among feminists. but i don’t know, never seen polls about that.
considering my mother rised me and my sister on her own. and was an outspoken feminsit herself. i find that hard to believe.
i didn’t say they are doing it all wrong. Feminists have archieved amazing changes in a relatively short time, they have done it all right. but lately there are some feminists i absolutely don’t agree with. and i think i am free to point that out. just as you are free to point out that you do not agree with my disagreement etc. that is debating.
but here it seems debate is only welcome when it is in agreement with the general views already held here.
i did not say that this is radical. wanting more woman in management is ok with me.
but we have people demanding that it is 50/50. and i don’t think that this is a good law.
i am not even a fan of the 30% they have in Germany for example.
for many reasons. i could explain that in much detail, and ready to listen to counter arguments, but that would be pretty OT here.
and might be perceived as trolling / derailing.
but when you know a better place, i am happy to debate it :)
@Aanthanur DC, you’re dismissal of rape culture, among other things, tells me all I need to about you so you won’t be missed. I think you would fit in much better in the slymepit as many of the assertions you make could have been be copy/pasted from there so that site is likely much more to your taste.
Hi Aanthanur. I reckon you could learn a lot from this crowd if you do a lot of listening, a lot of lurking, a lot of reading, and some occasional commenting. The place for fast and furious replycommentreplyreplycommentrefutereply might be YouTube: it certainly isn’t here. The quality of the brains on offer is too high to squander it.
And they will offer their brains to you.
One thing occurs to me about the way that YouTube seems to gather dictionary atheists like compost gathers flies: it’s like going into a large room of people who are all having wide-ranging and mostly good-natured discussions, but away in one corner there is a huddle of men who are confining their discussion to complaints about everyone else always bringing feminism into atheism; always bringing social justice into atheism; always bringing equality into atheism; always bringing toxic X into atheism. You look around the rest of the
Internetroom and see everyone else continuing to have good-natured discussions with the occasional heated argument. But in theYouTubecorner with the self-isolated group of men, all you can see is that they’re united only by their fear of feminism, equality, social justice. Nothing else. You try to talk to them, but they just angrily show you the dictionary definition, and return to their discussion about the perils of strident feminists making any sort of feminism impossible for them.[OT]
Not everyone knows what the slymepit is.
I thought we were going for a less hostile atmosphere.
Beatrice, you’re right. I also wouldn’t want to encourage anyone to go to the pit. Not ever.
I’m worried that Aanthanur may not be arguing in good faith, and the refusal to acknowledge their complete misunderstanding of what rape culture actually is, is a big warning sign. But Aanthanur came thinking that they knew all the answers and that they could type them really fast. Maybe Aanthanur can realise they don’t have all the answers, and could start from there.
At least in the US, I think there might be value in keeping the two concepts separate. That is, atheism as a rejection of gods, an essentially negative concept; and humanism as a moral compass, essentially a positive one. Having them as separate can / could allow the movement to address issues like all the Establishment clause violations without having to bring in other humanist, progressive values.
Personally, I find it handy to be able to say “As an atheist, I think…” vs. “As a humanist, I think…” It lets me agree with the atheists who are misogynists or homophobes about the Ten Commandments tablets, and it lets me agree with progressive Christians about progressive issues. It does of course require some compartmentalization, which can be distasteful.
I do agree that the overall goal of the atheist movement should be proposing an alternate moral compass to religiosity. But in terms of finding allies and actually making change happen, it’s practical to be able to separate the two concepts. YMMV, of course.
Aanthanur DC
Of course there is. It is called “cis”. The reason German native speakers don’t know it is the same English speakers don’t know it: They have never given a fuck about trans people.
BTW, take a look at the historical development of atheism in Germany and the Freethought community. Atheism was never apolitical.
That’s probably those who point out things you don’t want to change
1. THere are no “unborn persons”
2. Here we got the feminists you think are too radical: those who think that women are people and have a right to their own body.
You are not because you don’t
I see, those feminists who actually want to get stuff done. Like making rape less common. Like addressing systemic discrimination in the workplace. Also obligatory music video
*fall over laughing*
So, German is your native language? That makes the list of countries rather short. Here’s a hint: yes, your country has that culture. You just don’t notice.
Hank Says
Two guesses: Solana’s Scum manifesto, which was, of course, never an actual political program and a Twitter hashtag
Aanthanur DC,
Another correction:
Feminism doesn’t demand that there be the same number of women as men in management. It demands that women not be treated differently when it comes to entry into the field, rising in the ranks, speaking their mind bluntly and honestly at meetings, and in one on one encounters with their male higher-ups (see the current case of Geoff Marcy of Berkeley and the pushback from his male colleagues).
@John Phillips
i didn’t know that forum. and i just quickly went there to read a few topics, and it seems from what i have seen, that those people there are obsessed with PZ and FTB but o found no debate, only dumb OP and a bunch of like minded people agreeing and found absolutely no debate off any substance.
so. because i don’t agree with people here on some points. you think i should best go to those that see themself as your nemesis.
you know what is sad? something they have as one of the first posts in the topic about this blog.
where they post dumb pictures of fish with text boubles on it.
while i found that extremely childish and no forum to debate. it is exactly how i see me being treated here. i slightly disagree about some feminist proposals. like 50/50 men/woman in management of companies.
or abortion only 3 months into pregnancy.
i am treathed like i am totally against woman in work places or agaisnt abortion in general.
is this an US thing? coming from your extremely polarised political landscape?
with us or agaisnt us?
and no that dumb forum is not a place i like better. i found no debate anywhere, i saw idiots posting dumb stuff and another bunch of idiots all finding it funny.
after looking closer, i found one topic that is interesting, a poll if they are feminist, they see themself as feminists according to the definition “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people”.
one even points it out that it is laughable that this is a radical notion, it is just common sense. and i agree.
so, it seems that maybe even they, are not really your nemesis, but have sligtly differing ideas as to what exactly equality means, how we can make this happen politically etc etc.
but lucky others have pointed out that sending me to that forum is not the best approach.
just because i do not agree with you 100% does not mean i agree with your “oppsition / nemesis” 100%
i actually know nobody i agree 100% with.
that is why i don’t vote for parties or representants in my country, i vote on issues, referenda.
@EigenSprocketUK
i think i was in that corner.
i was a subscriber to Thunderfoot. and watched his videos earlier, have occasionally posted when i disagreed when he talked about Moslems. i found it bigoted as he did talk in far too general terms about muslims, as if they are some monolythic group of all likeminded people, yet i saw that as a very diverse group that i disagree with on many things, but didn’t feel the need to trow them all in the same pot.
but as he then made more science videos and anti creationist videos again, i stayed subscribed. but then he started his campaign against Sarkeesian. first i liekd it, because the video about games i saw from her was absolutely stupid shit.
i am a gamer, i have played Hitman, i knew the game, so i knew she is very dishonest about the game, heck you could even see it in her own video, how you get penalized when you killed the strippers. (and i even agree, that in the game industry, female characters get far too often sexualized. also in games i otherwise like, i can totally understand that woman might feel offended by this extreme sexualisation, while male characters are not sexualized that much)
i find this legit reason to talk about sexism in games and try to change that, but do that with legit examples, with honest review of games. factual reviews of game not totally biased uninformed videos. this hurtet the case much more and gave the sexists among gamers legit fodder for atacks.
but despite him making legit critiques of her, i found the amount of videos he made to be disturbingly much. and said so a few times in the comment section.
but as he kept generalizing and did not make it clear enough to me that not all feminists are that way like Sarkeesian. and kept talking about feminism in general while showing the dumb things some radical feminists say.
so i unsibscribed. but even to that, the reaction from his subscribers that also posted on his videos, was nowhere as hostile as what i get here.
nor the arrogance of, you could learn so much from us if you only listen and don’t engage.
which reminds me of my childhood and religions. Don’t ask such sceptical questions, just listen and learn.
that is no how my brain functions , sorry. it never did. even in school i was always the one that would ask questions.
and even said when i disagree, teachers had to convince me, i didn’t just accept seomthing because they said it, or the texbook said it.
and no, i did not come here thinking i have all the answers. i don’t think i have all the answers. i don’t know how we can solve the problem if sexism still in our societies, not even how to solve it among atheist youtubers if that is widespread among them.
but you here, did an extremely bad job convincing me that you have answers either.
Aanthanur DC
Well, and that is me not closing the tag.
You can figure it out folks, right?
Giliell, I *think* he was talking about taking the current German mandate that big companies’ boards be 30% women, and apparently there are people who advocate making it a legal requirement – as opposed to a goal (here’s a link about the 30% law: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/07/world/europe/german-law-requires-more-women-on-corporate-boards.html). On stuff like that, I think there is an interesting if offtopic question as to whether those goals should be legally enforced or set and encouraged as goals.
He’s on his own with the abortion and Gamergate stuff, though.
True equality requires equal numbers. What is your problem? Rape culture exists. Your failure to acknowledge it tells us something, not good.
The kill all men is overkill, but where is your references?
Yes, you have a problem with feminism and equal rights for women. Deal with it elsewhere.
i hope this is not seen as trolling, but when i posted my last reply, 2 new posts showed up that are towwards me. so i would like to answerthem, if that is not OK, just delet my post, and i will not answer them again.
“Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-”
i am not from germany. i am from Switzerland. and i would not say i didn’t give a fuck about trans people.
but honestly, i only saw like 2 people in my life that i assumed were transgender. i have never had any direct contact with anyone i know to be transgender, maybe i had and did not realize it.
but that does not mean i don’t care about them or their rights.
there is since a few years the debate about healt insurance paying for “Sex reassignment therapy” (medication, hormons and operation). i absolutely support that. it is just common sense that health insurance pays for it.
does not even need debate for me. i don’t know any rational argument against it.
so, because i do have a different opinion from you about up to when one should be allowed to have an abortion, i do not support equal rights?
i do happen to believe a baby becomes a person before it is born. but i also do not believe it is at conception.
somehwere between, but where exactly? i don’t know. i like the approach we took in my country. at the pooint when on average, the nerves connect to the brain. for me that seems to be the time when i imagine a baby can start to feel pain etc. but is that so? i don’t know. PZ surely has more knowledge on this than i do. and iam happy to listen to arguments. and maybe even change my mind.
but just equating me with people that think abortion is wrong in any case, does not convince me to change my mind at all.
when you think there is a rape culture in my country, pls explain what you mean with that, i don’t see it. Raping people is forbiden by law, rapists are not welcome in society. i never saw anyone that thinks rape is OK. the only thing is sometimes you here dumb arguments like “she was asking for it the way she dresses” but actually, only heard that like twice in my 40 years. but the circles i move in would not accept such people anyway, so i am sure there are more of them outside the people i deal with in real life. but i don0t see that as widespread in my country.
but when you have some evidence that we do have a rape culture in my country, pls, point it out. i am happy to look at your evidence.
i am absolutely not for discrimination at the work place, not based on gender , skin color, ethnicity or religion etc etc.
and i welcome approaches that reduce the still existing discrimination, not only at the work place, but almsot everywhere.
but maybe we might disagree about how to archieve that? accusing people of having a rape culture sems not to be an effective way. i don’t see how that changes anything.
juest because i might not agree with you on every detail, doesn’t mena i totally diagree with you on everything. ok?
no need for this hostility.
@saad
no feminism in general does not demand that. but there are some that do. some demand less, but still demand for example 30%.
i don0t think that this is a good approach. and i can go into more details if you want, as to why i think so.
but that doesn’t mean i am agaisnt the rights of woman. or even that i think, the amount of woman in leading positions if good as it is.
but forcing companies to have a certain percentage is counter productive in my view.
Rape culture is real, it exists, and we understand it here. Either start providing third party evidence it doesn’t exist (good luck, and remember an opinion of a misogynist isn’t the same as solid academic evidence).
That is a bigotted statement. You don’t want progress. And diversity is good for business. Just one of many:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331091252.htm
That is third party evidence.
Aanthanur DC, #114
I declare this day to be known henceforth as Headdesk Thursday.
Aanthanur: auch in Schweiz: http://blog.tagesanzeiger.ch/blogmag/index.php/4392/die-wahrheit-uber-vergewaltigungen/
oh dear, everytime i hit post comment, it loads new comments adressing me. i personally think, i would be trolling , would i just ignore them and not answering them. but not sure how PZ sees it.
i don’t want to troll. i like to debate. so i answer yet another post while i know there is a risk it might be seen as trolling here.
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
yes i can figure it out :)
up to what month in pregnancy do you support abortion?
@Derek Vandivere
yes that is indeed waht i am talking about.
and i am not alone on abortion, my position is exactly the laws in my country. so that was atleast the majority position of most people that voted on it.
and as there is no refferndum on this atm, i assume that this is still the majority position.
as you mentined gamergate, gamergate showed that i am also not alone on that.
but even if i where, so?
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
what are equal numbers when it comes to a companies management? same percentage as the general population, if a country has 50% woman adn 50% men, should companies require 50% woman and 50% men in managements of companies? or when say 30% of a countries workforce is woman and 70% are men. does the board have 30/70?
or do we look at what the percentage is in a specific field of specialisation?
when the management is already 50/50 and one man goes in retirement, and the best qualified candidate is a woman, should she not get the job, ebcasue they need a men for the quota?
this whole thing is far too complcated to just be saying, we want equal numbers, no debate about it or you are a sexist.
and once again, no i have no problem with equality at all. but it might be that we disagree what equality means and how to archieve it.
stop this, you are with us or against us.
when you want to change society, this approach is absolutely counter productive.
Derek Vandivere
Yeah, I mean, having a 70% quota for men is truely discrimination against men ;)
Which, is, of course:
-far from parity. Twice as many men as women
-an instrument in reaching equality. Personally I couldn’t care less about the boards of big companies, they’re criminals alltogether who’d sell their employees to the devil if he existed and made an offer. But the discussions around this were “interesting”. The total disbelief that a) the men currently in those positions are truely the best people for the job (do I need to mention those two letters that are very much towards the end of the alphabet?) and that there cannot be qualified women for these jobs.
Aanthanur DC
Yes, you don’t. Of course, there are no “unborn babies” anyway, but even if there were persons in utero, to deny abortion is not giving people equal rights, it is giving the fetus more rights than the pregnant person, usually a woman, and the pregnant person less rights than others. Because NOBODY has to donate their body for the benefit of another, not even a harmless thing like blood donation.
Let me guess: You’ve never been pregnant and are at no risk of ever becoming pregnant?
So, you have no fucking knowledge, but you support forcing women to remain pregnant based on your imagination. HInt: no, it ain’t so. An 18 weeks fetus cannot feel pain. The ability develops around week 25. Here’s a hint who can feel pain all the fucking time: the pregnant person.
I didn’t do so. I said you do not support equal rights, which I have demonstrated
Look at conviction rates and then tell me that rapists are actually punished.
Until the pregnancy is over, of course.
But here’s a question for you: Do you support forced cesarians if a fetus is at risk of dying in utero and the pregnant person does not give consent?
So what, you’re still wrong.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
here a link to the full study http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr09ASRFeature.pdf
you linked to an article that was even from before the paper was published.
i did not read the entire study, i read the abstract and the conclusions, and have absolutely no problem accepting their findings, that is what i already believed. and even if company profits went down when diversity increases, it would not be an option to say, ok lets have less diversity in companies.
atleast not for me.
i am not arguing against increasing the number of woman in management. i am just not convinced the approach we try will be usefull.
you claim there is rape culture in my country. provide evidence for this.
@Derek Vandivere
erm that article argues against rape culture in my country. it argues about rape culture in india.
and argues that it is the wrong approach to make this about men vs woman, and points out that even in the case in india, a men that wanted to help the woman, was beaten up. and makes the argument that most men see rape as wrong just as woman do.
well, i still don’t see that rape culture in my country.
so what exactly is this rape culture in my country? how does it look like?
To quote chigau:
“Have a nice day, Aanthanur.”
#125 / Giliell: Maybe I wasn’t clear. To me, the interesting question is whether social change should be forced through legislation or encouraged – something I’ve been thinking about in the last few weeks as Black Pete FINALLY starts to disappear from Dutch society (after attempts to legislate him away have pretty much failed). Really, it’s a question about what the most effective tactic would be to reach the situation I think we agree on.
Of course, I’m middle management at a big bank, so you probably assume I’m an amoral criminal as well.
Aanthanur: Oh, skimming through the article I thought I saw references to Swiss activities. Given that my daughter’s growing up there, I sure hope it’s less prevalent than in the US. I definitely see signs of it here in the Netherlands (but I do think it’s a *bit* less pervasive here than in the States, and I think it’s gotten worse in the 20 years since I left there). In general, I think it is kind of a fuzzy definition but the signs would be stuff like:
– Presenting women as sexual objects much more often than men in advertisements, media presentations, etc. (DEFINITELY happens here in Holland)
– How accusations of rape or sexual offense are handled by the public and the authorities
– The ‘she was asking for it’ mentality you mentioned earlier
– What kind of behavior towards women is considered socially acceptable (e.g., the stereotypical construction worker)
Another good sign that rape culture exists: when I first moved here back in ’94, our new Dutch boss found out that he had to present a sexual harrassment training. When he introduced it, he totally mocked the idea as ‘American’ and implied that it’s just not an issue here. I remember thinking at the time that his comment was a good sign that he really needed the training.
FWIW, it does seem to me that some folks around here consider you an enemy if your views only overlap 99% and not 100% (yet another reason to continue to treat atheism and humanism as separate but related topics).
You have yourself a nice day, too, Derek.
Aanthanur DC
Give us ONE EXAMPLE of a feminist (and not just a screen grab of something online, but a real, actual feminist attached to an actual public persona) who has said “kill all men”.
And rape culture EXISTS.
Aanthanur
Bull-fucking-shit
Emphasis mine. You know, the fact that this is about culture as a whole and not “men vs. women” is actually what rape culture is all about. So either get your ass up to speed as to what the term actually means or stop arguing. You know, you can claim that you didn’t understand something right because English is not your first language, but there’s no excuse for your blatant missinterpretation of the German language source.
Derek Vandivere
To me that’s not an either or. Both can work hand in hand. My favourite example is seatbelt laws. When they were introducedt here was lots of howling and gnashing and end of the free world talk. L aw + Education + demonstrable positive effect led to what I will call “seatbelt culture”.
Hmmm, what does “middle management” mean ;) I hope we can agree that the people who wrecked the global economy in 2007 are criminals.
But as I said, I care little about the top 0.1%. But those quotas have washback effects. I have worked in organisations with quotas and the result was that from the lowest level onwards people didn’t just grab the next guy who yelled “mememememeIwantIwantIwant” but carefully looked where there were women who might not be yelling, but who were nevertheless showing promise.
Er, if he’s finally starting to disappear, are you certain the legislation didn’t work…? Are you sure the change in laws didn’t help to push people toward ridding themselves of that “tradition”…? Should American not have legislated same-sex marriage into law and just continued to hope that states would do it on their own? Nope. We had to force the issue. To great results!
@ Derek Vandivere
i don’t know about the USA.
” Presenting women as sexual objects much more often than men in advertisements, media presentations, etc. (DEFINITELY happens here in Holland)”
that is absolutely happening, have no doubt. and i see getting rid of that as one of the big goals in the fight against sexism, but don’t see how this is rape culture.
” How accusations of rape or sexual offense are handled by the public and the authorities”
hard to say. we did have some famous cases in the german talking region, where men have been falsely accused, but meida and most people i know m including me, were pretty quick to jump on the side of the accusers. after investigation it turns out the accusations were wrong. that guy from Pro7, german TV, while he was not guilty, his career was over.
but that does not say anything about the far more common cases that do not involve high profile celebrities.
but it surely is a very very difficult situation. we cannot just accept every claim made, nad have to inverstigate, victims have to tell details of what happened to people they don’t know nor know if they can trust them etc etc.
have to be examined physically for evidence etc. i imagine that this whole process is almost as wors as the rape itself. and a big reason why some woman choose to not report a rape. what is a giant problem.
but again, don’t see that as rape culture, because that is a topic that is taken seriously, and we try to improve that. but a solution is not easy.
“The ‘she was asking for it’ mentality you mentioned earlier” absolutely not acceptable, but afaik, not the norm, not even a view that is publicly acceptable today. but surely is still around, but i think a tiny minority. so again , not a rape culture.
“What kind of behavior towards women is considered socially acceptable (e.g., the stereotypical construction worker)”
the stereotypical construction worker pretty much died i think, for the better. all companies I worked at (Engineering / IT) took it very seriously. and it surely is not yet gone completely, sexism is still something we should and are actively fighting in society.
so, i am sorry, i just don’t see that rape culture.
not even sure about India, a while ago there was a case where a head of a town ordered a woman to be gang raped and they did do that. a story that made healines here.
but in the end, it was the indian society that arested the head of town and the rapists.
it was indian society that sayd, no, this is not acceptable and demanded justice.
that this even happened shows that there is a problem in that region atleast. but also shows that their society did not think it is acceptable. so im not even sure if i would call the case in india rape culture.
(i don’t want to imply, look india is worse, so we are innocent) all societies have still problems with sexism, and there still is a huge amount of work ahead of us to get rid of it completely.
but calling it rape culture? i don’t agree. ( i don’t want to imply we don’t have problems with rape, i just don’t think it is culturally accepted or tollerated in my region.
False rape accusations are SUPER RARE. What “far more common cases that do not involve high profile celebrities” are you talking about? If they are “far more common” (I quote you), you certainly have examples you can share with us right this minute, right?
I hit enter too soon, apologies.
Oh, goodie! A Man doesn’t see it, so it must not exist! It largely doesn’t effect men, but if men don’t see it, then it doesn’t exist. How convenient!
Evidence, please.
OTOH, don’t bother
Giliel – good point that it doesn’t have to be an either / or. Nederland Wordt Beter (the main group that’s been fighting the racist depiction of Black Pete) has done a bit of a combination – both lobbying and trying to organize people to submit official complaints of racism about it. Weirdly, the whole conversation has nothing to do with whether or not blackface is ok – it’s all about whether or not Black Pete is meant to represent a slave. Odd.
Oh, and I think there’s at least 4 levels between me and the CEO (I’m an IT domain architect, which means I basically take our bank strategy and try to relate that to roadmaps for what we’re going to do in our landscape for consumer loans over the next X years). So I could probably do some damage inadvertently (e.g., I had a meeting last week asking why our credit card department just had to pay EUR 50K more to the external credit bureau than they thought – they might blame me, but my stance is that they misused ‘my’ services).
I was just a bit triggered by your blanket condemnation of execs (I’ve known a few – not for huge companies, admittedly – who really are trying to do the right thing).
Chigau: Well, bless your heart. Hope you have a good weekend, too.
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
“Als Kultur aber muss es uns darum gehen, dass Männer wie Frauen sich darauf einigen, dass sie Vergewaltigungen und sexuelle Gewalt nicht akzeptieren”
means as a culture, we have to agree on that we do not accept rape and sexual violence.
we already do. but that will not prevent rapes from happening. we punish such behavior, we try to protect peopel from it as good as we can.
so i don’t see how we are a rape culture when we already agreed that rape and sxual ciolence is not acceptable.
it is a small moniroty that rapes or falsely accuses rapists.
“Es geht auch nicht um Aggression im Allgemeinen, sondern es geht um die Minderheit von Männern, die andere vergewaltigen und sexuell demütigen. Im Übrigen ist es auch nur eine Minderheit von Frauen, die mit falschen Vergewaltigungsvorwürfen Männern schaden wollen.”
“Toleranz ist gut, aber wir sollten den Grundsatz hochhalten, dass wir Rape-Culture und die systematische Unterdrückung der Frau niemals tolerieren werden. Weder bei uns noch in anderen Kulturen.”
tolreance is good, but we should never tolerate rape culture, not in our culture, not in any other.
and we don’t. and i have seen no evidence that we do.
Manly man explains silly woman the world.
My whole fucking life. Occasionally combined with some groping.
Bless your Heart
@marilove
i think i was not clear enough on that , my point was, that those public cases that go into the press say nothing about the other cases that don’t get media coverage.
and i mean both cases, real rape and false accusation, i never meant to imply or say that false accusations are common. i do think they are super rare.
most sexual voilence does not get much media coverage as they mostly do not involve famous people. cases involving famous people get alot more media coverage.
Hey Aanthanur DC, where is the evidence to support your claims of “common” false rape accusations? You have yet to provide any sort of resource for anything that you’ve been asked to provide evidence for. You just ignore the question, and move the goal posts. Huh.
Just because you don’t see something does not mean it doesn’t exist. You mentioned you were a “sceptic” above — well, do you have any idea what “confirmation bias” is?! You’re not a very scepitcal person. You’re making large assumptions based on antipodal evidence and confirmation bias. That’s now how a skeptic should decide things! Interesting that you’re suddenly okay with not acting like a sceptic when the subject of rape comes up…
Ah, so you don’t actually have any evidence whatsoever and yet you feel the need to mention them because we must always be reminded that women are out to ruin the life of famous men. Ah. How not surprising.
Rape culture folks. Aanthanur DC is full of it.
antipodal evidence? LOL Anecdotal evidence! Yay autocorrect.
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
manly man? silly woman?
really?
i did not try to explain the world to you or anyone, i was talking how i see the culture in my country, and that i don0t see this rape culture. and the evidence i got presented that rape culture exists in my country was very unconvincing, actually i don’t consider the acrticle evidence at all. all i got was a blog post.
when you have so much trouble to provide evidence of that alleged rape culture, you don’t have to wonder when others don’t see it.
Aanthanur DC
It is time for you to tell us how you define rape culture.
“Hey Aanthanur DC, where is the evidence to support your claims of “common” false rape accusations?”
i never claimed that false rape accusation is common. i explained this.
i don’t think that it is common, i think it is a minority.
i explained what i meant in the post right before you accused me of making that cllaim. i did not claim that.
“Rape culture folks. Aanthanur DC is full of it.”
wow, really? amazing the accusations i get here….
for you, the world is just black and white?
i don’t see rape culture in my country, so i must support it with all my heart?
@ chigau
already postet what i got from wiki, but here again.
“In feminist theory, rape culture is a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.”
and i don’t see how this is the case in my country.
Aanthanur DC,
re: Rape culture
The first rule of rape culture is that there is no rape culture.
The second rule of rape culture is that there is (almost) no rape.
… that’s because the rape is defined so narrowly that barely anything fits into the definition.
And that is what rape culture is.
Not people thinking rape is awesome, but people thinking that
fuckingraping someone too drunk to think straight is not rape, thatfuckingraping someone who eventually just stopped saying no in answers to coercion and cajoling is not rape, thatfuckingraping someone asleep (who previously gave no indication they would like something like that) is not rape, thatfuckingraping someone who said no (but on some other occasion had said yes) is not rape, that blackmailing someone into fucking is not rape, that an adultfuckingraping a teen is not rape, that raping a seductive woman in a sexy outfit is not real rape, that raping someone who flirted but then didn’t consent to sex is not rape….I could go on
That’s because you’re not its fucking victim. You probably also don’t see much racism around you if you’Re white or homophobia if you’Re straight. In short, idiot mansplainer.
@Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought
i accept all your examples as rape.
Aanthanur DC,
That’s great.
Now take into account all the times you read about a rape where half the article is spent on recounting what the woman was wearing and how she was flirting with her rapist beforehand. Take into account how many times people hear the same examples I gave you and falter about calling it rape (“Well yeeees, but she…)
… just take a moment to think about these things people are confronting you about.
You’ve offered your opinions about probably a dozen of feminist topics. You’ve been given counterexamples and explanations for most of them.
Why don’t you take a moment to consider you might be wrong? Don’t keep writing stream of mind comments just to keep up and show off. Think.
You are free to ignore my advice to leave this thread and come back to another one some other time, after you’ve just read about feminism for a bit, but I think it would do you good.
I have this silly belief that you’re not arguing in bad faith or trolling, and that you’re just one of those (too common) folks who say really harmful stuff just because they haven’t thought things through.
Best advice ever.
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
i was told it is not about man or woman, but about sexual voilence.
so as a man, i can very well be the victim of it.
i do see alot of racism. i am a cis man with white skin (more pink)
in fact i also felt what i perceived as a sort of racism.
from 11 to 18, i grew up in Belgium. I was kept being called the swiss. ( Zwitser) almsot everytime when we went to the city, my friends kept pointing out to everyone that i am the swiss guy,
i felt myself reduced to a nationality. not seen as who i am, but what my passport said. i hated it and i started to fight people until i almost kicked from school. but then people stopped it. and i was fluient enough in the language that people did not hear that i was swiss, and it stopped being a topic, and people saw me, and not just my nationality.
in no way do i want to say i know what all racism fells like, i was able to learn the language. a person with a different skin color will usualy always have that skin color and it will for the rest of their lives be a topic for others.
but also today i see racism , in Switzerland not uncommon. sadly even becoming the mainstream i fear.
but i always, have spoken out. when i see racism.
be it in the train full of people, where a bigoted person constantly used the N word and other slurs towards a person with dark skin.
or in the tram, similar situation. did it in a bar. got even beaten up by a bunch of neo nazis.
i have spoken out against people that started moaning because two woman kissed eachother in the tram.
speak out whenever i hear anyone argue that Homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt a baby. etc etc.
and most forms of racism i come across (i call it bigotry usually as i don’t believe there are different races among humans)
mostly is bigotry towards people that have pretty much the same skin color i have. People from ex jugoslavia, italy, heck even germans that are here and those that are in germany. also antisemitism.
i find your accusations towards me very bigoted.
“Sexual violence” aka rape LARGELY effects women. Yes, men are victims as well, and can often be the victim of rape culture because raping a man is often not taken as seriously. But women are still waaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more likely to be the victim of sexual violence than men. Way more. Like. A LOT MORE.
@Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought
i always think i could be wrong, or i would not see any reason to even start debating.
i have been wrong often in the past, i have changed my mind on many many things.
don’t think just because i am new here, i am new to online debates or the topics at hand.
i have spend many years on JREF forum. for example.
i find it pretty arrogant to think, just because someone does not agree with me on some details, that he did not think about it.
i have spend alot of time thinking about such topics. i have been risen by a woman that was an outspoken feminist. one of the strongest woman i have ever met.
she did everything for her kids, i have withnessed violence in a marriage. heck, my stepfather tried to kill us. she saved our lifes. we had to flee in the middle of the night.
so don’t give me that shit that i did not think about such topics.
Aanthanur DC,
You may call these differences details, someone who is actually impacted by them calls them relevant to their everyday life. So here’s where I doubt you’ve thought everything through as well as you think you have.
There is more to life than just your own perspective.
Your mother sounds awesome. Really.
And it’s almost like you’re taking criticism of your own biases about feminism as a slight against her. I wonder, since she was an outspoken feminist, how come you’ve become doubtful about feminism? These feminists who want to kill all men, feminists who you blame for your doubts, they seem rather sparse in reality. It’s almost like they only exists in fevered imaginations of some people.
That’s really weird, you know.
Can you imagine a son of a fighter for labor rights turning against unionists because he read somewhere that there are unionists who want to kill all rich people?
Sounds far-fetched, right?
So yeah, your positions strike me as really weird, and since I don’t think you’re lying, I think you haven’t thought things through.
But proceed as you wish. I just hope I won’t read you after a 100 comments complaining how people haven’t explained things to you. Because we have. I haven’t touched most other things, but I have talked about rape culture. So don’t claim you’re reading for comprehension if it’s more like putting fingers in your ears, singing la-la-la and then just going on like nothing happened.
@beatrice
i have not become doubtfull about feminism i have become doubtfull about some feminists with high media coverage.
but i don’t see them as representing feminism, that is why i called them, for a lack of better word, radical feminists.
and i gave two reasons why i don’t call myself feminist, nobody cared for my first reason, only for the second one, which admitedly was pretty weak. on the other hand is exactly on topic of the video in the OP.
where it is feared that the many anti feminist videos from high profile YT atheists on youtube might keep people away from Atheism.
an idea that i have not doubted.
i don’t call myself unionist, not because there were cases that unions were corrupt. but because i have done absolutely nothing for unions, but i like unions, i even think it is a must that workers organized themself to get better representation and a more powerfull position to fight for their demands. i cannot understand this anti union stance i see so often in the US media.
same with LGBT. i dont call myself LGBT activist or however member of the LGBT community are called. i have done nothing for them. all they archieved, they would have archieved without me. the few times i was able to stand up for LGBT rights is not enough for me, to count myself to the people that have fought decades to get the minmal rights they have today. i have never been to a LGBT gethering, protest or anything,
but in no way does that mean (atleast to me) i do not care for them, or that i do not support their demands.
and same goes for feminism. i have done nothing for them. all they achieved, they would have achieved it without me. and i simply do not think i deserve to call myself a feminist, simply because i agree that woman should have equal rights.
how do we then call those brave people that stood up and fought for their rights and got alot of them after many many decades of fighting for it, actively fighting. and many still do fight this fight rightfully so.
and my mother happens to share my fews on those feminsits that i called “radical” (will ask her tomorow if she thinks we are living in a rape culture)
you know, also among feminsits themself, there is not always 100% agreement. and this is perfectly normal for any group of more than 2 people.
so i don’t really get this, you have to agree 100% with us or you are not welcome here (that is the feeling i get here)
even when i only disagree with how to achieve a certain goal i get talked to as if i was in disagreement about the goal.
i never felt that unwelcome like here. and i went as a 9/11 truther to the JREF forum a few years ago. (i changed my mind on this after alot of online debates) but even there, i felt more welcome than here. and i was in almsot 100% disagreement with them as you can think.
Aanthanur DC, #159
Can you name these feminists with high media coverage?
And what positions of theirs do you not like and consider to be “radical”?
You’ve mentioned this a few times now but haven’t been specific.
@saad
i already have been specific.
Then you obviously don’t know how to be specific. We’ll tell you when you get there….
Aanthanur DC, #161
It’s a really simple question.
You said “feminists with high media coverage”. High media coverage means you know their names. So you should be able to tell us their names.
and i went as a 9/11 truther to the JREF forum a few years ago. (i changed my mind on this after a lot of online debates) but even there,
Are you aware that the subject of rape and sexual violence is way different than the subject of 9/11 truthers? This isn’t a fucking hypothetical discussion for me. I HAVE BEEN RAPED. More than once. My personal life is not here for your education or debating pleasure. I don’t care if you feel unwelcome. Way to turn it around and make it all about you and your feelings. Everyone has been really patient with you. You can’t even back your ridiculous claims up with specific sources or names.
GIVE US A NAME. I won’t continue even attempting to talk to you until you give us at least ONE name of a “feminist with high media coverage” who has stated she wishes to kill all men.
This is the second time I’ve asked this.
(Forgot to blockquote, oops.)
Aanthanur DC
Sure, no group can agree on everything.
But see, this isn’t a flower appreciation society where I say that sunflowers are the best flowers and you think they stink, we agree to disagree (after ruining a meeting or two with our fights) and life goes on. When we talk about social justice issues, we talk about things that have real impact on our lives. So it’s more difficult to just agree to disagree when it comes ot something I think you’re wrong about.
as i already pointed out. Anita Sarkeesian and her “research” into games. was on the Colbert report, was at the UN (with a legit reason, online harassement) and messed up big time.
posting “you suck” is not harassment and claiming so is counter productive for the legit problem of real online harassement.
for example,
or Zoe Quinn, gamergate and also UN.
@marilove
very sorry to hear. but that doesn’t change that i do not see the rape culture in my country. and i found no evidence of a rape culture as desribed on wiki or by people here.
nor did i in any way argue that rape in any form is acceptable. i did not downplay the horrors i cannot even imagine.
rape is a very very serious problem. and we still have to improve as a country in this regard, no doubt, but that doesn0t mean for me that we are in a rape culture.
nor do i want to imply me feeling unwelcome here is in anyway even comparable to the horrors you must have been troughand propably still go trough. that was not my point.
but it does not help you if everyone that is not 100% in agreement gets driven away because not even the slightest difference in opinion is acceptable.
how does that help reduce that rape culture you talk about?
Now I know where you’re coming from.
Thanks for your time, Aanthanur.
You still haven’t given us an example of a high profile feminist who has stated she wants to kill all men…. Please do so.
@marilove
https://www.google.ch/search?q=Bahar+Mustafa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Bahar+Mustafa&start=10
Do you acknowledge there is a rape culture? And if so, what are you doing to get after the misogyny behind it?
It just so happens that i was in Germany last weekend for a congress. Outside of a bar, talking to three other men (the attendees were overwhelmingly male, how surprising), a young woman not wearing a coat (it was very cold) run past us. This prompted the man to my left to say “what she needs is me to keep her warm”. The other two men laughed, i just stared at him, finished my cigarette and left.
Rape culture doesn’t mean that rape is happening in vast numbers, in plain view, without any consequences (although that description is more accurate than you suspect). It means that there is a culture of tolerating objectification, minimising harassment, victim-blaming, etc, that actually leads to people raping without even realising that that is exactly what they are doing, to victims not reporting because of social stigmatisation, a lack of adequate response, etc. In fact, it is so dangerous in very large part because of how shitty we are, in general, at recognising the symptoms and how common it is for people to hand-wave them away as minor, unimportant or even to deny their existence as a problem (this should be familiar as you are doing it here). To the people affected by this, it’s neither minor nor unimportant, it has very real and very serious impact on people’s lifes, in numbers much larger than you are aware of.
You would do well to stop digging, back away from the keyboard, read about these subjects, learn from the people around here who know a fucking SHITLOAD more about them than you and stop lecturing others, including actual victims.
Oh, and by the way, just a pet-peeve of mine, none of this is a debate. I really hate this fad that is floating around youtube about atheists “debating” people…Half-baked, pseudorationals thinking that “debating” others on the internet makes them intellectuals and gets them browny points. There is a place and purpose for an actual debate, although these days they are being very heavily abused, if you ask me, but the kind of “debating” that goes on in youtube and some forums and blogs is nothing but self-important wankery, usually of very poor quality.
This is not to say that you shouldn’t seek exchanges with other individuals that might disagree with you, being exposed to new ideas and points of view is generally a good thing, but the “let’s have a debate” bullshit is pointless and counterproductive because it sets you up to try to “win” rather than to learn.
And just for emphasis, saying, for example, as you have, that women don’t get bodily autonomy after the third month of pregnancy is not “a small disagreement”…it’s not “we agree 99% percent so why are you being so hostile”…it’s a really fucking aggressive and mysogynistic statement. You might not realise that it is, but it really fucking is. People have been too kind not to completely dismiss you as a mysogynistic arsehole right after you said that. Rest assured, you are not being made “unwelcome” over nothing…over some tiny, little, disagreement. You are being, very kindly, tolerated despite your profoundly aggressive and insulting statements.
You are saying the woman is a second class citizen compared to the fetus, which won’t be considered a person (with a certificate) until born in most countries of the world. Any attitude that diminishes women is misogyny. We have prima facie evidence YOU have a problem. Either learn or go away.
OMG a Twitter hashtag doesn’t count. It wasn’t an actual attempt to persuade anyone to actually kill men. Sigh.
SO any other examples? No? Didn’t think so.
A hashtag shouldn’t make men fear for their lives. They already have a safe space – most of the world
So, I completely stand by Bahar Mustafa if she used a hashtag that said #killallwhitemen. She may have said other stupid stuff on Twitter – the place where women are tweeted abusive crap day in, day out. If men are seriously fearing for their lives because of this hashtag, they can surely organise a safe space. Indeed, they have; it’s called “most of the world”.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
not convinced we have that in my country (and i don’t know about other countries.)
when that means germany has a rape culture. then the term is meaningless.
sexism i a problem, but calling sexism, rape culture, will not change anything but make people wonder, what the heck is rape culture.
it seems to be a very vague construct.
and i am not lecturing anyone, nor do i think i am an intellectual….
i didn’t realize that this is a place where only preaching to the choir and singing along is allowed.
i somehwere read this place is about free thoughts, reason, discussion and opinion.
well false advertisement culture is all too common it seems.
You’re joking, right? All you’ve done is lecture. And repeat yourself.
Aaand you’re doing it again…”well false advertisement culture is all too common it seems.”
Christ, you lack any sort of self-awareness.
AND AGAIN: Just because you personally don’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist fuck.
Bullshit. Your posts are lectures.
Freethought (if you had bothered to do your homework).
Empiricism is evidence to back up your ideas.
You pretend you are dissenting. So does every other misogynists. But you aren’t engaged in freethought, which means you are questioning the dogma of institutional misogyny, rape culture, and other institutional bigotries that hold down women, people of color, LGBT, etc.
You seem to support the institutional bigotries by your defense of them.
Freethought doesn’t mean accepting all ideas as equals. Those ideas without evidence need not apply, and can be dismissed from further consideration if proffered.
Aanthanur DC ,
Can women in your country feel safe from police misconduct when they report rape? What do statistics for reported vs unreported rapes look like? What percentage of rape investigations results with an arrest, a trial or a conviction?
You don’t have to call it rape culture, call it misogyny instead. Call it bigotry. But don’t dismiss it (whatever it is called) when people keep giving you examples.
It means you’re too obtuse to listen and try to understand the term, not that it lacks meaning.
Aspects of a culture that encourage men and boys to rape is what we are talking about, along with aspects of a culture that encourage people to look the other way, treat it as an insignificant problem, allow them to escape justice, blame rape victims or focus on their actions instead of the rapist’s, shame them for being a victim instead of treating them with respect and dignity, and so forth. There is no country on Earth that does not to some extent exhibit these features. The aim is reduce or eliminate them as much as possible.
Every fucking word I just said (and then some, because that’s just a start) has meaning. So, that’s not what meaningless is, jackass. Don’t try again, to reword it so you still have your way somehow — just fucking listen. You might actually learn something if you do that.
It fucking has. Because chances are that one of the people laughing at the joke is a rapist. And he thinks that the other guys agree. Rape culture in Germany is being lectured on the length of your skirt when a guy passing you on the bicicle grabs your ass. Rape culture is being lectured on where you parked yur car when you narrowly escaped a probable rapist in the car park. Rape culture is when somebody tries to abduct a female student in the car park and instead of posting security there, the university tells the female students not to walk alone. Rape culture is when you open the door to the apartment block and some guy groans into the house intercom while wanking. Rape culture is getting indecent calls. Rape culture is 9 year old boys telling a 6 year old girl that she has to choose three of them and have sex with them. Rape culture is some guy coming to an internet blog telling lots of women who have been victims of sexual assault, harassment, rape and any combination of those and who had their stories dismissed, been called a liar, been told that it was their fault for wearing that skirt, parking that car, going to college that rape culture doesn’t exist.
RAPE CULTURE ON WIKIPEDIA
From RAPE CULTURE 101:
RAPE CULTURE ON WIKIPEDIA
From RAPE CULTURE 101:
German artist writes on maxi pads to protest rape culture:
http://www.care2.com/causes/meet-the-german-artist-using-sanitary-napkins-and-social-media-to-talk-about-rape.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/period-pads-artist-posts-feminist-messages-all-over-city-10099919.html
https://instagram.com/elona_x/
Cripes, I go to the pub for a pint and a schnitzel (which was delicious, thank you) and our friend goes full Gamergate? Glad I didn’t invest any more effort into the conversation. If game critic Anita Sarkeesian (whose observations about games, while valuable, are not radical in the least) is your high-profile feminist AntiChrist, you need to broaden your horizons.
And Zoe Quinn? Even worse example – here’s a woman drawn into global fame completely against her will, due solely to the deranged and false rantings of a former lover. Here’s a person who literally did nothing wrong – who did not exchange sex for positive press (her reporter lover didn’t even review the game she developed) – and who nonetheless became the target of a worldwide online hate campaign.
In Quinn’s case, and Sarkeesian’s, it was that hate campaign that ultimately propelled both of them to the UN. The very hate campaign that was meant to destroy or silence both of them (among others) propelled them to a global audience that neither of them sought and could probably have never imagined – that’s a supreme irony that I suspect is completely lost on the vast majority of lackwitted rageboys that harassed them both for so long (and continue to do so). The internet would call this an example of the Streisand Effect, whereby efforts to censor someone have the opposite effect; I prefer the CIA term for the unintended negative consequences of their interference: “blowback”.
It’s ironic that a movement supposedly oh-so-concerned with ethical journalism was founded on a blatant fiction and is characterised by starkly unethical behaviour and a dedication to ignore inconvenient facts. But hey – since when did shortsighted fundamentalist hatemongers ever appreciate irony?
Thank you, Caine
Aah so I see. He knows a little bit about everything, but nothing dubstantial about anything.
Anyone want to hear my.opinion on prices of milk in Poland? I have opinions and you have ro respect them!
beatrice
How about you support laws based on how you imagine them to be?
lol hillarious. shows the lack of scepticism there is here.
because Sarkeesian is a feminist, you do not even dare to do fctchecking on what she claimed about what games.
even i could have shown much better examples of sexism in games.
it is an important topic, and really something we should work on as a society. but not by lying about games that actually are not sexist.
but zero scepticism here. the contrary she gets defended.
but i guess that is because what is said about this blog, is indeed the case, this is where the radical feminists are at home.
when you blindely defend such people instead of using the same scepticism you use agaisnt theists.
just as in the video, where he shows tumbnails of videos and moans about sexism, when atleast some of those videos seen on his screen are actually justified critiques.
the many woman that speak out against 3rd wave feminism, have done more for feminism than radical feminists have achieved lately.
you are destroying feminism.
you fear that atheism might look bad to newcomers when they see some high profile YT atheists are sexist.
yet you completely ignore what impression newcomers to feminism get about feminism.
Oh dear, non-feminist man mansplaining feminism to feminist women. I think we have reached peak irony
@Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
you are one of the most sexists persons i have ever met :) the irony.
It’a not like Sarkeesian’s videos have been extensively covered on Pharyngula so one doesn’t have to make shit up about what people here think about them…
That’S because you have no actual idea what “sexism” means
I would love to live in a world where Giliell was the.most sexist person I ever met
“That’S because you have no actual idea what “sexism” means”
yeah, im just a dumb man. how could i possibly know what sexism is.
You have to love when the most superficial, biased, prejudicial “thinker” complains about others being so because they can’t argue their way out of a paper bag…But rather than examine their own ridiculously flawed ideas, it’s all everybody else’s fault, with their loud opinions and the….things…that annoy the special snowflake….and…waaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!
Carry on, soldier of reason!
I thought there was a glimmer of hope at the beginning, but now….
Pathetic…
Go back to your “youtube debates” where you no doubt are getting the highest quality of information from the brightests minds the world has to offer…But please, have the decency to not pretend you are a rational thinker, because those words have meaning and you have demonstrated to base your opinions on nothing but emotion and logical falacies (repeteadly). I’m sure you’ll be received by your peers with open arms when you come back with tales of how terrible those FTB people are, how toxic their feminism is and other epic stories that make you look like you really showed us, with your reason and your debating skills. Because fuck reason, logic and evidence when you can make up your own reality where you get to feel superior…
No, you are just dumb. Your genitals or identity have nothing to do with it.
The good news is, it’s curable, but you need to be willing to take the treatment.
And please, make no mistake, you actually don’t have a fucking clue what sexism is. That is a FACT. But don’t worry, you don’t need to post again to tell us about how you do know better than the everybody else what sexism is and how we are all horrible and wrong and loud and unwelcoming. We already know how you feel, since feelings are all you’ve provided, and it doesn’t change reality, so spare us.
You are dumb, uneducated and way too full of yourself. You’re arguing with people who have been doing feminism for a long time. You have demonstrated that you have no clear concept of the terms and constructs, are ignorant on the scientific literature, history and current discourses.
But you still think you’re competent in telling us what rape culture is, whether it exists, how valid Anita Sarkeesian’s research is, how long a woman should be allowed to have an abortion and so fucking on. And then you complain and howl that people are sexist against you.
I’ve been a skeptic for 35+ years. AS presents evidence. Your evidenceless screeds are treated skeptically. As they should be.
Your sex has nothing to do with you being dumb. That has to do with the fact you think your evidenceless views should mean something to people who value science and empiricism. Your blather is treated properly. It is laughed at and shown to be bullshit.
“But rather than examine their own ridiculously flawed ideas,”
oh i did. for example, i do think i need to revise my opinion on the 3 month limit for abortion. because that was based on pretty old research . and science advances fast, so i need to keep up with my opinions.
what does not mean i agree that one should be alowed to abort in the 8th month because she just doesn’t want the baby anymore. because i do still believe that somewhere between conception and birth i should consider it a member of the species homo sapiens, and thus should have rights that are worth protection. and i do not believe that a baby starts being conscience only at birth.
i do however also understand that this means we are telling the pregnant person she cannot soley decide about her body.
i do think, but i would not call myself thinker, never did.
“Go back to your “youtube debates” where you no doubt are getting the highest quality of information from the brightests minds the world has to offer”
you know, YT does offer some if the highest quality informations from some of the most brilliant people on this planet.
i sepnd several hours listening to lectures from Suskind. just one example. Hawkins,
YT has to offer alsmot everything. it is a very diverse place.
but also not a good platform for debates, just like here. which comment sections never are.
“But please, have the decency to not pretend you are a rational thinker”
i try to use rational reasoning , i always try, i do not claim i always do, i know that this is not true. and i try to improve it.
i am not shy to admit when i am wrong. or when i failed at scepticism or factchecking.
i am a victim of my own bias like everyone else is. i try to get my own biases i am aware of out of the way, but we all know that this doesn’t work perfectly.
but i never would call my self a thinker.
” I’m sure you’ll be received by your peers with open arms when you come back with tales of how terrible those FTB people are, how toxic their feminism is and other epic stories that make you look like you really showed us”
wow. you really overestimate your importance here lol.
i did not show you. nor did you show me, that is not how i view such exchanges.
i came here to see if the stuff that was claimed about PZ and his “followers” are true.
so i can form my own opinion and not only parrot what afew YTers claimed about you.
but i am not going to make a video about how many here do indeed act as described on YT.
there are enough good videos against the form of feminism you are representing here. from other womans that call themself feminists. they manage to still fight to improve our society in regard to equality without being shy to also call out feminists that are factually wrong. (Factual Feminist comes to mind)
“. Because fuck reason, logic and evidence when you can make up your own reality where you get to feel superior…”
making up your own reality like rape culture? i try to not do such things.
i am not superior to anyone. i am not superior to you or anyone else on FTB.
“That has to do with the fact you think your evidenceless views ”
what views are that?
” AS presents evidence. ”
where? she showed how sexist Hitman is. when she killed the strippers, on her own video you can see that she gets penalized for it (on the left side of the screen, the red numbers, her score gets reduced), because they are not part of the mission. and you get the same penalty for killing characters that are not part of the mission, no matter their gender.
so that is a factual error one could easely spot in her video alone, without having to know the game.
one could also watch the same mission being played by other people, that are actually gamers and make let’s play.
i know several that did that mission without killing them, they all avoided them. they all had to sneak around so the stippers don’t see him. i know of no let’s play video where they got killed. because usually, you try to get the highest score possible, that menas, do not touch the strippers,
sure that is just one example, but i could go on and on.
but i doubt anyone cares here or that they even spend 5 minutes to find out if i am correct on this.
Still demeaning the woman misogynist. Show the scientific evidence that a woman is less of a human being than the fetus. Or shut the fuck up as being ignorant. Like no doctor would “abort” meaning kill a fetus at 8 months unless defective. He would abort by early delivery, which is also what abortion means. Changes with birth that make it a real good dividing line.
Ah, pretending to be naive, not just ignorant and a bigot. Stop that. We are intelligent. Either listen or go away. You have nothing to say that we haven’t heard a thousand times before, and found to be utterly some to laugh at.
Nope, they are merely opinions of misogynists, and misrepresent the truth. Which isn’t found in videos, but in the academic literature.
No link, dismissed as fuckwittery.
“No link, dismissed as fuckwittery.”
Nothing relevant has changed about the science, dipshit. The dictionaries have not changed the meaning of the word “relevance” lately either — you should look it up.
You know what happens at birth? The woman’s bodily autonomy wouldn’t need to be violated, just because you say so. But you show zero concern for the woman, pregnant or not, so perhaps it still would be if you had your way.
Don’t fucking say “we.” It’s just you, asshole.
You understand that you’re treating her like a slave? I’d have a slightly better opinion of you, if you didn’t understand that, but were just mindlessly repeating whatever random crap other shitheads fed to you. On the bright side, there’s nowhere to go but up for you now. But I don’t know if you can budge at all.
Sorry, I don’t do videos by misogynists. That is isn’t evidence, just opinion pieces, which if you were a skeptic, you would realize. Try something from here:
Google Scholar, good academic evidence.
“It’s just you, asshole.”
NO. it is the law we use in my country. what is how we do things here.
and in my country, you could start a refferendum and have people vote on the issue.
but when you go around calling people assholes because you did not yet convince them. you would fail. you need to convince people. hat you do, i tell them to guck off when they not already agree.
maybe for you the unborn homo sapiens has no rights yet. but in my country for example, it has rights. limited. but it has rights and gets protected when needed. and people around here think that after 3 months society should protect the rights of the unborn. before that you can have an abortion.
just telling people i am right and you are wrong, accept that or fuck off. is not a rational tactic to change society.
“Sorry, I don’t do videos by misogynists.”
oh, is he a misogynist? do you have evidence for this claim?
and no it is not just opinion, she makes false claims, and in her vieo itself, a real sceptic would see that her claim is false.
that is maybe why she got so much attention? and not becuase she is a woman and gamers hate woman…..
Still no recognition at all that women have rights. It’s all fetus, fetus, fetus — like the woman isn’t even there.
You don’t want to be convinced. If it convinces rational and decent people, unlike you, then I’m fairly satisfied with the quality of my argument. Just not the quality of your thinking, asshole.
Like I said a couple of times now in this thread…. get a full, legal, adult person with all rights and responsibilities. Imagine that’s what really inside a pregnant woman, for the sake of argument. You do not have the right to force a woman to support that rights-possessing adult with her body, against her will. You do not. You would not get to do that with men if they were in such situations, and you therefore do not get to do it with women either.
So, telling me fetuses have rights is IRRELEVANT. The woman has rights, which you choose to ignore, that cannot be infringed simply because the fetus has rights. If the fetus doesn’t have any, well, that would indeed make your case harder — but if it does, it changes nothing whatsoever about mine. Read that a couple of times carefully if you need to. But don’t respond with the same boneheaded crap over and over, as if it hasn’t already been addressed.
I think Aanthanur DC is a problem and I’m going to report it.
Who the fuck has ever said that the fetus is not human? Or that unborn people should have no rights whatsoever?
Your ridiculous position, however, does make the pregnant person LESS THAN HUMAN since it takes away bodily rights that EVERYBODY else enjoys, in favour of the “rights” of some other entity, something that DOESN’T HAPPEN in ANY other case. This is mysogynistic, extremely offensive and VERY dangerous, whether you are capable of recognising it as such or not.
By the way, an abortion at 8 months, is called a birth. I was born by cesarean, i was technically aborted, and i am, as you can see, alive. Also, such cases are so mindbogglingly, incredibly, stupefyingly rare that to take away rights from people based on the imagined and totally unrealistic scenario of a person somehow deciding that they no longer wish to be pregnant 8 months into the pregnancy is so utterly ridiculous that there are no words for it. It also says A LOT about what you really think of women…
The fact that countries have very shitty laws doesn’t make your case in any way whatsoever. Your insistence that this means anything is quite simply, stupid. It’s also incredibly dishonest as i am certain that you wouldn’t accept “this is the way it’s done in my country” as a valid argument for a great many other things.
A real skeptic wouldn’t just see that anything is false, a real skeptic would back up their assertions with EVIDENCE, not statements of fact.
Rather than being all hurt about how mean people are being to you and reacting emotionally and deffensively, you should really spend some time thinking and looking at evidence, it would do you a world of good.
“Still no recognition at all that women have rights. It’s all fetus, fetus, fetus — like the woman isn’t even there.”
oh really? we would kill the fetus if your life is in danger.
i don’t think only the fetus has rights. but also do not think only the pregnant person has rights.
there is a homo sapiens inside the pregnant woman.
” You do not have the right to force a woman to support that rights-possessing adult with her body, against her will. You do not.” actually we do.
we create rights, and your rights do not always trump the rights of an unborn homo sapiens.
” takes away bodily rights that EVERYBODY else enjoys”
no, in my country, this is for all pregnant persons.
with abortion i mean, the unborn person will die. that is the problem, when you get induced pre term birth, i don’t care. that is your choice. the athorities should take care for the baby if you do not want to keep it.
Chigau @ 213:
Please, it’s unbearable idiocy all the way down.
Dreaming @ 214:
Pardon this, I have a bug about accurate language. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Birth is also a termination of a pregnancy. This bothers me because so many people substitute baby, fetus, whatever for pregnancy, conveniently leaving out the process of pregnancy, which is happening to a woman, a person, and pregnancy can be unwanted, and pregnancy can be damn dangerous.
“The fact that countries have very shitty laws doesn’t make your case in any way whatsoever. Your insistence that this means anything is quite simply, stupid. It’s also incredibly dishonest as i am certain that you wouldn’t accept “this is the way it’s done in my country” as a valid argument for a great many other things. ”
to me, it means something, because here we do things the way most people approve of. we have a direct democracy,
but i don’t use it as an arguemnt to claim, the way we do it is the right way, no, it simply is how we do it,
i don’t even think just because the majority of us thinks so, so it must be right. sure not.
@218 Caine
Point taken. I meant to highlight that a late term abortion does not mean killing the fetus. My choice of words should be more careful.
@219 Aanthanur DC
To you it means something…then in the next sentence it doesn’t mean anything…make up your fucking mind!
Jesus. Aanthanur DC, you’ve been warned. Instead of stopping and thinking about what others are saying, you just repetitively spew a clumsy reaction, and further, your mask is slipping — you really are exposing yourself as an anti-feminist.
You will not post in this thread again. If you do, you will be permanently banned from this site. If you go off to some other random thread to repeat the same things you’re babbling here, you will be banned.
Control yourself. This is not Twitter.
LOL yeah just bann me, it is the only way out for you guys here.
you make claims about some alleged rape culture yet totally failed to provide any evidence for it.
even on YT you find more scepticism and rational thinking than here.
sad.
Aanthanur DC
You are very stupid.
bye-bye
My, that worked out well. Looks like we can add “incapable of following directions” to the list of a certain person’s idiocy.
Oh noes, we were so trapped by his logic and reasoning skillz!! Thank fuck PZ appeared to save us from the epic pwning of being bombarded with the same ignorant, emotional horseshit over and over!
But hey, now he gets to claim that we were so incapable of dealing with his truths that banning was the only way to save ourselves from humilliation.
Much reason, very skeptic.
Just for giggles, yes, there is actual valuable material on Youtube among the thousands of bullshit videos containing nothing but brain vomit. I accept Hawkins as a source of such material…tell me, was it from one of his presentations or documentaries that you got the idea that women don’t get to have bodily autonomy from? Or maybe it was him that illuminated you on the non-existence of rape culture? I know you can’t answer, but don’t worry, we know what the answer is.
Christina Hoff Sommers! Is that your idea of what a feminist is?
WHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA * falls off the chair*
Jesus, these gamergaters and youtube lecturers are the least original people in the fucking world…
She is a woman and she claims to be a feminist (she fucking isn’t), therefore PWNED, you SJWs!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
How about all misogynists/anti-feminists are non-thinking people who don’t see half the population as their equals, which they are. Which makes them epsilon males.
No, you moron…we are not basing our dismissal of her as a feminist on a fallacy….we are basing on the demonstrable fact that the shite she spews is decidedly moronic and anti-feminist. There is a reason why gamergaters like this woman, she says the exact type of horseshit they want to hear and it is enormously convenient for them because they can prop her up and say “see? she is a woman and she agrees with us!”. So fucking what…the merit of her arguments rests on her actual arguments, which are laughably shit. But when you have an ideology you need to support, who cares about facts and reality, right?
“the shite she spews is decidedly moronic and anti-feminist”
evidence?
Yeah, because i’m about to waste the rest of my friday on providing the Amazing Teflon Guy with evidence that he will simply ignore and dismiss…
You don’t get to make any more demands…too much time has been wasted on you for absolutely nothing…
There are other Youtube channels with people taking on Christina Hoff Sommers as well as the other Youtube mysogynists and anti-feminists, maybe you should check those out instead of forever dwelling in the gamergate aproved cesspit of self-serving bullshit.
as expected, more claims without a shred of evidence, yet you claimed “the demonstrable fact”
yet fail to demonstrate the fact :)
Me in #158;
Aanthanur DC in #222,
Lovely
After 92 posts (the number is probably inflated by his tendency to babble and write strings of comments, rather than assemble his thoughts into something coherent), Aanthanur DC is banned.
Why do the asshats constantly prove themselves incapable of following simple, clear directions that would spare them that fate?
ITT
THE MAJORITY SHOULD NOT RULE/VOTE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY. If that were the case, then the U.S. would still have legal slavery, and we never would have made same-sex marriage legal in all of the states. This is a poor argument.
I know he’s going to be banned if he hasn’t been already (and then probably go whine on reddit or YouTube about us somewhere), but I had to respond do that idiocy. Barf.
PZ:
If they did that, why, they wouldn’t be Brave Heroes™ standing up for the dudebros everywhere. Its radical, man.
i would have bet a kidney that at some point we’D get CHS as a “reasonable feminist”
@203, Aanthanur DC
But Sarkeesian’s video does mention these penalties. And gender-equal distribution of this penalty is a Red Herring, completely besides the point of the Trope she is talking about:
So where’s the “factual error”? This is completely accurate.
As usual with anti-Sarkeesian people, you don’t know what she actually said or what her point was.
I don’t have time for the rest of your Gish-gallop…
one of the things that characterizes visitors to this site like this latest banned individual is they do not seem to understand something fundamental I sense about this blog. There is more of a sense of collaborating to arrive at the truth than there is a polarity of sides in an argument with a us and a them.
The collaborating takes the form of reason based on evidence to find the truth of a question and not a competition of ideas based on unquestioned assumptions, mythology and opinion.
The apologists like the banded “guy” do not understand that and eventually break down and get angry when reality does not cooperate. It is interesting and challenging with the possibility of witnessing an “aha moment ” always there. There may be those moments happening with those who lurk in the readership of these exchanges.
one can hope!
accepting truth takes a certain amount of humility some people lack, alas.
uncle frogy
Wow. I wake up to Actual Skeptic (No, Really)™ Aanthanur not only slamming Official Internet DudeBro Den-Mother C. Hoff Sommers on the table like some tank-demon trump-card in a deck of Magic: The Gathering (MRA Expansion), but also displaying that he doesn’t actually pay attention to Sarkeesian’s content (yet somehow knows she’s bad and wrong), as well as inviting upon himself a ban and claiming martyr status. And this was, what, several dozen comments after promising to fucking leave because he didn’t get a cookie?
I guess they remove the self-awareness chips from these mandroids at the factory – that would explain how they so expertly parody themselves.
uncle frogy
It used to surprise me how many self-identified skeptics lacked the humility (and honesty) to admit error or change opinion based on better information. That feels like a long time ago…
Hank says
In other words: everything’s as usual here on Pharyngula
But I will always think of CHS fondly as the person who seriously complained about boys no longer being allowed to play a game like “tag” and instead being forced to play a girly game like “circle of friends”, which is indeed “tag” with a lot more running around…
@238 marilove
Could it possibly work any other way though? What rights you have can’t be divined from on high, they are by granted you by the larger society, or not. Whether the decision lies with the population,a dictator or whatever will vary from country to country.
“feminism per se, which is simply the equality of the sexes at the end of the day. You lose.”
“Feminist means one simple thing: Equality for women (and men).”
Funny how you all attack “dictionary atheists” with such gusto, yet you all defend this lose-ass definition of feminism. Then, you also turn around to no true scotsman the shit out of CHS. So let me get this straight: feminism is merely “the radical idea that women are humans too” and CHS isn’t a feminist because? Well, fuck if I know. Using this definition of feminism is the most hilarious thing you can do after rambling so much about atheism. Someone should coin “dictionary feminist” now, it’d be fun, you’d all get a new word with which to no true scotsman the groups of feminists who you disagree with. You know, it’s not like they’re real feminists if they don’t agree with AS.
Nope, you don’t get it. Women are humans with the same rights and privileges as men. You left out something important, something CHS ignores. She is only a self-described feminist, and is somebody who degrades women by not making them totally equal at the end of the day. Having anti-discrimination laws doesn’t mean discrimination is over, like all apologists would have you belief. You only stop having affirmative action once the playing field is total level. Society isn’t there yet, and won’t be until the misogynists acknowledge their problem.
I’m okay with CHS calling herself a feminist, but why is her Twitter page full of the same things that misogynists say? That’s really weird. It’s the same talking points. And she includes bonuses like mocking abuse and rape victims (see this one for example). If you block out her name, her page looks indistinguishable from something you’d see from thunderf00t.
It’s like a black activist saying racist things against black people, but maintaining they’re for black equality. It’s just weird. But she can call herself whatever she likes of course.
Nerd @248
By what you said, I think you understand my problem with that definition. People like CHS fully believe themselves to fit the description of that loose definition, mainly because that definition only talks about ones beliefs (that women are as human as men), not about what that means for ones actions, how that is reflected in society, etc. When you say she is “only a self-described feminist” you’re not wrong, it’s just that, using this definition, that’s the best you can get! There will always be someone who believes that something you do isn’t feminist and therefore you’re not a “true feminist”, you don’t “truly” fit the definition. This is the reason why I defend that using lines such as the ones I quoted is counter-productive, it merely gives anti-feminist people the means to call themselves as feminist as someone who actually does something about those problems.
Saad @249
I’m not okay with CHS calling herself a feminist, not because I don’t think she has that right, but because, like you said, she just isn’t one. What I’m attacking here is this notion that all it takes to be a feminist is “believing men and women are equally human”. Sure, it might be a nice slogan, but it doesn’t actually go into any of the problems, and only serves to give people like CHS and thunderf00t ammunition to poison the movement. Advocating for a stronger definition of feminism can allow us to avoid having to answer CHS’s claims of being a feminist with what, at least superficially, is a no true scotsman fallacy.
Basically, this definition of feminism is too weak, it describes only ones beliefs, not their actions or whether or not they recognize the problems society faces in regards to sexism. Theoretically, one could call themselves a feminist and yet deny that sexism is even a problem in todays world, because (by that loose definition I quoted) that’s not required to be a feminist, and I think that’s not very helpful when solving sexist problems in society is already hard enough.
Sorry for the ramble, TL;DR: PZ wants to encourage a better type of atheist, I’d like to encourage a better definition of feminism.
(P.S. sorry I used the word “definition” 500 times in a row, I couldn’t think of a better one :P)
Nope, you are totally wrongl. There are those who are
,
CHS is a professional concern troll, pretending to be a feminist while working to deny true equality to women by removing the micro and macro aggression and male privileges that keep women second class citizens. Which is why she is only laughed at by those working to achieve true equality.
The fact you don’t see that, is why you are the problem for true equality of women, not part of the solution.
Nerd @251
Okay, two things.
1) I said in the second part of my comment that I don’t support CHS. I don’t think she’s a feminist either. All I’m saying is that using the loose definition of feminism, you don’t get to say she isn’t, because that definition merely refers to what she believes about herself, in this case, that she believes women to be equal to men. I’m not trying to say she’s right, and I apologize for not making this clearer. All I’m trying to say is that I think defending this specific definition of feminism isn’t useful for the cause.
2)Yes, there are concern trolls, but are you really trying to say that there are no people pulling the no true scotsman regarding feminism? Because I have seen big feminist groups, here in Brazil, openly fighting each other about who gets to call themselves “true feminists”, all because one group considers the other “too extreme” or “not extreme enough”, or because one group thinks it’s okay for men to call themselves feminists while the other group thinks that that’s men’s attempt to steal women’s protagonism, and a lot of other minor details. And they’re not small groups, or groups that don’t actually do things, they merely have different views on a lot of points, even though they agree on their objective.
So, I’m sorry if I’m misinterpreting what you said, but it sounds like “there are no feminists who will disagree with your version of feminism enough to call you a “no true feminist”, only people disguised as feminists who are merely doing it because they’re not allies”. In other words, do you believe that there are no people who are sincerely, truly feminists and yet might not consider you one? (Note that I’m not talking about whether this hypothetical person is right, merely whether or not they exist)
erik333
Your understanding of how government should work, including the United States’, is painfully simplistic. Same-sex marriage wasn’t decided by a “dictator” even though it also wasn’t directly decided “by the larger society”. Same with the abolition of slavery, and the right for women to vote.
<blockfeminism per se, which is simply the equality of the sexes at the end of the day. You lose.”
“Feminist means one simple thing: Equality for women (and men).”
Funny how you all attack “dictionary atheists” with such gusto, yet you all defend this lose-ass definition of feminism.
You missed my fucking point. Obviously each word has a very basic (or “loose”-ass…) definition, but in reality it’s much more than that. CHS can CLAIM she’s a feminist by using the very basic definition**, but she’s not, is my point. I was using Mr. Skeptic’s arguments above against him, Rivendellyan. You can’t just say “women and men to be equal!” but then contradict yourself with everything you say and do.
That
Was
My
Point.
marilove @254
I apologize then. That is also my point, so it seems we agree on this, sorry I didn’t understand your previous comments.
No they aren’t equal to men, and that is the problem. Why don’t you show, that at the end of the day, there is no rape, no sexual harassment, no pay differential, and women hold as many high paying jobs as men. Until you, or CHS, do that, you don’t tell the truth, just your spin on the truth. Which is why I use the term “self described”, because she is really an apologist for male privilege and the the pretending that “equal opportunity” means that the results are equal. Which is why she is laughed at, and not taken seriously by anybody but those trying to maintain the status quo of male privilege.
Try your pointless mental wanking elsewhere. Obvious leading question. Try reality. You lose in reality. I’ve been mistaken for a woman many times at Pharyngula, instead of the fat baldheaded old man I am.
Nerd @256
But Nerd, I’m not trying to defend her or those things, I’m not saying this and I honestly think I never even hinted at this. I’m only talking about the definition of the word “feminist”, and those were merely some examples to help me explain my point, not any attempt to defend those people or their points of view.
We’ve been having a conversation about definitions (or at least that’s what I thought this conversation was about, now I’m not sure we were talking about the same thing at all), so I think it’s important for me to understand your position, where you’re coming from, to better communicate. I pointed out there was an opening for people to explore a fallacy (on purpose or not), and you seemed to disregard my point by apparently claiming no one really does that except for trolls. I wasn’t sure that’s what you meant, or if I misunderstood, so I asked this question to confirm if I interpreted your sentence correctly, not trying to “get you” or something like that. I even included a real life example that I witnessed to try to give to give better context to the question, but I apologize for not being clear enough.
I don’t know why you included that part about being mistaken for a woman here, and as this wasn’t the case, I won’t say anything about it.
I hope you see that I’m not opposing you on feminism, I’m not anti-feminist or anything close to that, I just honestly thought we were discussing the definition of the word and whether or not it is a good definition. I care a lot about epistemology, about how we know things and how we think we know things, so I find this kind of “pointless mental wanking” both important and fun, but I understand if you disagree, and if you want me to, I won’t continue the conversation. Thanks for the answers anyway.
Why don’t you put out your definition instead of criticizing?
Hypothetical for you Rivendellyan. What would you think of a self-described atheist who constantly talked about the need to be spiritual and believe in magic, admired religious people, and wants to accommodate religion, even established religions, in all phases of life?
I would use the term “self-described atheist” for such a person to note the irony, as they are obviously religious, but won’t acknowledge reality.
Team Aanthanur DC!!!
So I can’t criticize things if I don’t have the solution? Criticism is merely pointing out some limitations of a thing, in this case, a definition. I’m not anyone’s owner to decide what definition they can or can’t use, I’m trying to come to a conclusion about this one we’re discussing. I’m pointing out something that I think is a problem and could be discussed more, not claiming to have the high ground and the perfect explanation for everything. I believe that being critical of one’s own positions is important for improvement, and since I want to see feminism improve more and more, I like having discussions about it’s topics, including it’s definitions.
What I would think about them is that they have either never come into contact with good arguments as to why those positions (believing in magic, admiring religion, etc) are wrong, or they weren’t convinced by them, probably for bad reasons. I would think they’re being irrational, in the sense that they’re failing to come to a logical conclusion about something that I’m convinced is very clear. But here:
You changed the subject from what one thinks of this person to what one would call this person. What I would call them is atheist. As long as that persons answer to “do you believe in god?” is “no”, they’re an atheist. I don’t think religion is merely a set of actions, it is a set of beliefs as well, and of course, I can’t go into that person’s mind to see whether or not they actually believe what they say, so I wouldn’t go around proclaiming they are liars or something like that.
Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of people here have this idea where atheism is a position that is only reached if one is being logical, or is proficient in logic. I have childhood friends who I grew up with, and though a lot of them turned out atheist like me, I’m the only one who participates (or is even interested) in the atheist community. They were atheists because god didn’t make sense to them, not because they thought about it deeply and came to this logical conclusion.
Team Rivendellyan!!
Rivendellyan
You know, the tricky thing about beliefs is that they are inside heads and can’t be examined by somebody else. We only get to evaluate what people say and do.
Now consider this scenario: I think we can agree that the definition of “christian” is “somebody who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of god and who died for your sins”. Pretty basic stuff. Now, if somebody said they were christian, but they only eat halal meat, pray to Mekka 5 times a day and exclaimed that there is no god but Allah and that Muhamed is his prophet, are they christian?
Words have meanings and implications that go beyond “inside the head”. So since CHS shows no indication that she actually believes in the equality of the sexes, she can bark “I’m a feminist” until the moon goes green, but she isn’t.
Feminist Christina Hoff Sommers:
Link to RT
Link to RT from Michael Fucking Shermer’s
Link to RT
Link to RT
Link to RT from Michael Fucking Shermer
Link to RT from Michael Fucking Shermer
Link to victim-blaming RT
Link
Link to Milo video on GG
Link to RT
Link to Milo tweet
Link to Milo tweet
Link
And that’s all just this month.
Feminist. LOL.
Inane criticism without you being wrong by taking solid position is called trolling. You are a concern troll, not showing logic, honesty, and integrity. Typical specimen.
Besides, I have described what is a feminist above, which involves equality AT THE END OF THE DAY. CHS is not a feminist, as she is more than happy to have the appearance of equality with equal opportunity laws and such, but ignores the institutional sexism and bigotry that gives unequal results AT THE END OF THE DAY. The remnants of institutional sexism must be removed for that to happen.
Your trolling doesn’t change that fact. Your inability to have a solid definition is prima facie evidence of your trolling. You aren’t that smart.
Giliell @262
Which is why when a definition only mentions someones beliefs, you don’t get to correct them without calling them a liar or engaging in no true scotsman.
Two things: 1) Maybe you and I could agree on that definition, but not everyone would. I’ve heard a slightly different definition from every christian I’ve ever seen. 2) I would gladly agree that that particular set of beliefs, when posed together is very strange, to say the least, and that I would try to point out to such person the apparent contradiction in what they say they believe and what they do. But I draw a line between what I would call that person and what they call themselves, so while I’m more than willing to think they’re wrong, I can’t go into their mind to tell whether or not they really believe that, and in the end of the day it’s up to them to decide whether or not they identify as a certain label.
For example, I consider myself genderfluid. Some people out there will gladly try to shove it in my face that because I am (at least right now, I’m taking steps to be more… androgynous, for lack of a better word) very boyish, I must be lying about that or not understand what it means. But they don’t get to go into my head and actually see what I think about myself, what I actually believe. So while they’re free to think what they want about me, they don’t get to tell me they know my own beliefs better than me.
Agreed, though I think words are a lot more about usage than they are about meaning. This is why I think definitions should reflect that, go a little beyond merely what people believe themselves to be, but actually mention something about reality. Far from me to try to force anyone to adhere to my rules though, I just like having discussions about it. In the end of the day, we’re all still free to use words the way we want to try convey our ideas.
And Saad @263
I’ll say it again, I never defended CHS. I’m criticizing a specific definition of feminism, not trying to defend anti-feminists. It’s very much the other way, because I think when the definition isn’t great they get more leeway to call themselves feminists, which they aren’t.
Trolling is trying to annoy people and get them to respond to you even though you have no intention of actually engaging in a conversation, you’re merely baiting them into wasting their time. I think the fact that I’m taking the time to answer things point by point and actually trying to convey the ideas I’m trying to defend are more than any troll would be willing to do.
You know when Matt Dillahunty goes to debates and people get annoyed because he recognizes his limitation and says “I don’t know”, rather than trying to defend a positions he’s unsure of? That’s trolling now, according to you. When someones writes a big text criticizing a movie without pointing to something the movie could do better, they’re trolling, according to you. When people like Anita Sarkeesian criticize games without pointing to better alternatives, she’s trolling, according to you.
For the fourth time now: I do not support CHS. I agree with you, and everyone else in this site that she’s not a feminist, and I’m not saying she is. I’m saying she believes herself to be one (though she’s wrong) and that I like to talk to people like the ones in this website, who are in contact with the feminist movement, about whether or not we should try to define the movement such as that it becomes clearer that, by definition, she isn’t one.
Take for example, the definition of racism=prejudice+power. It’s a good definition, in my opinion, not only because it highlights a lot of the problems with the older definition and shows the inherent problems in society just by explaining it, but it also takes the ability from dishonest racists to claim persecution by shouting “reverse racism!”.
I never tried to present myself as some sort of genius, above everyone else with all the answers to the hard question, which is why I even bothered to post here. Do you really think if I were some kind of full-of-himself troll I’d bother coming here to try to discuss this? There’s much easier targets than this fro a troll to take, ones that take far less time and effort to try to understand.
Do you want my take on the definition? I think it should mention something about what a feminist does, not only believes. Something like: a feminist is someone who takes action against issues of inequality in society, mainly referring to sex and gender issues, such as the institutionalized oppression of women, the normalization of prejudice against LGBTQ+ people, the rape culture present in most, if not all, modern societies… and so on. Keep in mind, however, that I’m not trying to force this definition, I’m trying to get a discussion going.
All I’ve gotten so far are attacks on anti-feminists, which have nothing do with anything because I’m not trying to defend them, no one here is.
As a skeptic, I question everything. People lie. Con men are out there. One needs to be vigilant against the liars, especially liars for profit. Self-descriptions are starting points, and should be initially taken as honest. The “trust, but verify”, kicks in, and verification of the self-description against facts is needed.
That’s what everybody here has been telling you. You are too busy pretending to discuss that you weren’t listening. There is no need for further discussion, since it appears you agree with us. Further posts are just trolling or beating a dead horse.
“The existence of humanism does not mean that calling yourself an atheist exempts you from all responsibilities to normal human concerns”.
That’s absolutely true but it actually applies to all human beings whether or not they choose to identify to the label “atheist”, or “contemporary-music-lover”, or “q-tip collectionner” or whatever. It’s true that atheists need to be concerned by equality, but not “because of” or “in spite of” their atheism, but because they are simply human beings among other human beings.
It is in that sense that I also say that atheism is not necessary related to humanism. It is so not only in theory (the dictionary definition of atheism) but also in practice since some atheists are indeed assholes. You should criticize them for being assholes, not for being an atheist AND an asshole.
Wrong. They shouldn’t call themselves atheists is they are assholes. It makes the rest of us look bad, as you do defending them.
@Nerd of Readhead: you mean that a “true” atheist cannot be an asshole by definition? and those who are assholes are actually not atheists? That sounds like a no true Scott fallacy to me. And it seems naive to think that you’ll get a homogenous group of people just because they share a single label, and especially if this label is not specific at all about the human values you’re supposed to have. I mean, look at Christians, they’re supposed to follow the teachings of Jesus, which are pretty much about loving everyone, and you do find “true” Christians who are assholes as well.