He’s done it again. The Amazing Atheist is very upset that people are calling him a racist because he says racist things, so he’s made a video in which he demands that everyone stop calling him a mean name. His argument for why calling him a racist is unjust is basically that he claims everything he said was true…but then, that’s what every racist says about their arguments.
He claims there are two main reasons people accuse him of racism, and then proceeds to make the same old racist arguments with greater vehemence, like that will persuade. The two things he tries to defend are:
-
He’s pro-gentrification. He argues that it improves neighborhoods, and that is a good thing, which is true. The problem, though, is that it does so in a way that does not benefit the people in those neighborhoods. He even acknowledges that gentrification displaces people: he argues that it makes no difference, they’re living in a “shithole” and they’ll just move to a different “shithole”. Treating black people as a fungible mass is racism. You don’t deny that you’re racist by ignoring systemic effects of historical oppression and acting as if current oppression is no big deal.
-
He claims that black culture is a victim culture, and boy, does he ever hate victim culture. Feminism is also a victim culture, don’t you know. Apparently, victim culture is whenever a group or person that has been targeted for victimization actually speaks up and complains about the problem, says the atheist complaining loudly that he’s being victimized by SJWs.
Martin Hughes notices the irony.
Here’s the point I want to make absolutely clear. I don’t particularly care whether you label The Amazing Atheist a racist or not. What I’d like to say is that when The Amazing Atheist talks about race, he simply does not know what he’s talking about, and a lot of his fan base doesn’t, either. He’s an ignorant asshole.
And either one of those things is fine. I like ignorant people who will admit that they are ignorant, and I can stand assholes who actually have the intelligence and knowledge to logically back up their condescending tone. But the two of them together is as annoying as nails on a chalkboard.
And this combined with the fact that he is a hypocritical crybaby is grating. I can stand crybabies. Just be consistent about it. But the crybabies who go out of their way to label other people victim cults for hurting their feelings…and hypocritically sets up a victim cult of hundreds of thousands that caters to their every sniffle…. I’m sorry. I don’t get that.
I also don’t get that the Amazing Racist has never really said anything compelling or interesting about atheism, but has become popular by raging against feminism and minorities, neither criticisms that are particularly well-supported by atheism (and many of us would argue that they are antithetical to the humanist implications of godlessness), yet he sets himself up as a prominent, representative atheist.
I relish the irony of the atheist bros’ criticism of feminists and black people as being too sensitive.
I can think of no other group that cries as often and with as much drama about the mildest of sanctions and criticisms against them as if they’re the victims of some systematic oppression.
Feminists and black activists get the “victim culture” label slapped on them for speaking against true atrocities like rape, discrimination and police brutality, while these dudebros think they’re being oppressed because someone criticized their bigotry in a tweet or a blog post.
The most sensitive and fragile egos on this fucking planet.
It’s not just that he’s being victimized by SJWs.
Martin Hughes cited this from the original video: (emph mine)
Or in other words, he’s implicitly complaining about atheists being victimized — presumably by the dominant Christian culture.
It’s almost as if a lot of atheists are gullible sheep too, lining up behind the loud man shouting about the evils of those not who are not like him. Guess that’s one more thing atheist dudebros have in common with Christians.
Aw, did his precious little fee-fees get hurt when they called him a racist?
It really is true what they say about bullies: They’re telling people to grow a thicker skin but are usually extremely thin-skinned themselves.
That’s one of the hilarious ways that racists out themselves. When they try to pretend to be non-racists, they suppress their general dislike of black people and try to speak impartially–often coming across as a Vulcan, which is another one of their tells–but they do reference statistics like the crime rate, or differential IQ scores or test performance, as objective facts.
When you call them out they invariably reply, “Oh, so facts are racist now?” You’ll hear every variation on the same theme: they’re not racists, but they are rational people who accept the facts of reality. Such as the fact that black people are… not “inferior,” exactly, but… less capable in school, less able to hold a job, more prone to criminal behavior, etc.
Occasionally I’ve seen the astonishing spectacle of a racist pretending to be a liberal, and saying things like, “It’s important for the social safety net to help black people compensate for their lower IQs by lowering standards to something within their reach.” It’s a perfect storm of “racism is bad but all of its premises are true” and “liberals are everything conservatives say they are, and I’m a liberal too.”
There’s an interesting conversation to be had about gentrification, but that’s not how it starts.
It’s nice to finally see somebody else calling out the alt-right hypocrisy for creating their own “safe spaces” where they complain about how those that are actually, legitimately aggrieved assert themselves in the name of a more inclusive society.
+1
@7 kdemello1980 — yeah, it kills me how often you see Prof. Myers singled out as some sort of Overbearing Censor on behalf of the SJW Marauding Hordes. You’ve actually gotta work pretty hard here to have the banhammer brought out, and PZ warns you several times, and it’s only after a lot of other commenters have jumped on the racist/sexist/MRA/Christo-thug. Whereas Damion Reinhardt or David Osorio will ban you after one fairly factual correction along the lines of, “um, but that’s simply not true in either Turkey or Iran, neither of which are Arab countries”. Boom, you’re gone, with a “You Don’t Belong Here, Buddy” explanation of why they prefer to maintain their little echo chamber of 18 visitors per day. Bloggers issuing a trigger warning about sexual assault verbiage ahead is somehow the greatest threat to free speech since The Terror of Robespierre and D’Anton, but ask a Dude-bro Atheist why he doesn’t believe the Cosby accusers and you’re kicked off the board. They sure do like thems some safe spaces.
Also, I might add, Prof. Myers usually kicks people out of a discussion for arguing in poor faith, being off-topic, or making the same discredited point again and again and again. He rarely (if ever) does so for their stance on a topic. If some devout Muslim came into a discussion to argue, in good faith, why he thinks women should stay sequestered at home and wear the burkha outside, only accompanied by an adult relative, I’m pretty sure PZ would give them a whole lotta rope, and hope they could learn from the responses.
I think I phrased #7 poorly. What I intended to convey was the specific irony of attacking the “safe space” concept from within a “safe space” of one’s own making. (projective butthurt?)
It’s the crybaby victim-cult part of the alt-right that Martin Huges describes, and I don’t think this specific aspect of the “movement” gets enough attention, or at least, I don’t see enough people pointing out the vast parade of naked emperors.
I think I phrased #7 poorly. I intended to thank Martin Hughes for pointing out the specific irony of complaining about the “safe space” concept from a “safe space” of one’s own making with his crybaby victim cult description.
It’s a very general lack of self-awareness that seems to be rampant among alt-right agitators, and I think we’d be better off if more people focused on this one specific aspect of the anti-SJW “movement.”
Put another way, it works to undercut an argument, if the one proffering it is engaging in the very behavior that argument is decrying, by proffering the argument decrying the specific behavior in the first place.
When someone points out how increases in rent and taxes, property condemnation, and eminent domain disproportionately and systematically destroy black neighborhoods, and your response is “yeah but the neighborhoods get nicer, I’d rather go to a mall than a slum”, I think you’ve lost the right to claim you’re not a racist.
@5
The thing that kills me about these “the facts are racist” people is that, even if their “facts” are 100% accurate, the facts apply to populations, not individuals, so they are still racist if they rely on those “facts” to treat any particular individual differently.
If you have a population of people with green skin and people with blue skin, and you could prove, absolutely indisputably *prove*, that 95% of the time, the green-skinned people are “better” at some particular type of job than the blue-skinned people, that is still NOT a good excuse to refuse any particular blue-skinned person the right to apply for the job and compete for it. You’d still be a racist if you refused to hire the blue-skinned person if they proved to actually be the best candidate or refused to even give the blue-skinned person a chance.
This ties back into the O’RLY discussions over the last couple of days in that it’s all about ignoring or erasing the past. Just as O’RLY ignores the brutality of slavery to preserve his fantasies about the Founding Fathers and white American history, TAR ignores a long and sordid history of racially motivated gentrification to preserve his fantasies about modern economic motivated gentrification (though I don’t doubt there’s plenty of modern gentrification that’s still very much racially motivated).
The racists love them some statistics as long as they don’t have to think too hard about how things got that way in the first place. Martin’s post on gentrification shows quite clearly how systemic racism in the property and housing arena pushes blacks into ghettos. Deny loans, forcing them to have to rent. Raise rent to force them into ever cheaper and more rundown housing. Then use condemnation and eminent domain to drive them out. But all TAR can see is “black neighborhoods bad, white neighborhoods good”, and pats himself on the back for being so observant and rational. He justifies supporting gentrification by saying it just gets rid of bad neighborhoods and replaces them with good ones, willfully oblivious to the fact that racially motivated gentrification is what creates a lot of those bad neighborhoods in the first place.
“I don’t care if the shoe fits! I refuse to wear it!”
You want to know why you should care about persecution of black people when you’re not black, TJ? Just ask Pastor Niemoller.
Over the years I have become particularly annoyed by the concept of “victim culture” and the idea that people who openly complain about any problem or adversity is some sort of moral weakling.
Lost your job and are having problems making rent? We don’t want to hear it! Shut up and find a job!
Suffering from mental illness and not sure what to do about it? Stop whining! Grow a backbone and rub some dirt on that depression or anxiety!
Dislike making less pay, receiving unwanted sexual attention, and having rape threats left on your blog’s comment page? What are ya complaining about, Muslima? Women in the Middle East have it much worse than you! Besides, men’s right’s matter too, you know?
Being dragged out of your car and beaten (or worse) by a police officer for just being he wrong skin color? Stop with the crying, crybaby! It’s not ass if they’re lynching you! Show some personal responsibilty. Racism’s dead because we’ve had a black president!
Showing your emotions. Showing pain. Showing weakness. None of these are acceptable in macho, stoic, cut-throat, winner-take-all America. It doesn’t matter how badly you’re hurting or how dire your straits. You’re suppose to keep quite, grin, and bear whatever the world throws at you without complaint, even when it’s others who are throwing it at you.
No wonder our country is such a pile of shit.
re 17:
obvious sarcasm but I’ll respond like you seriously meant it:
why shouldn’t a person with an illness tell their doctor they feel crummy?
or a mugged person go to the police to report it?
a kid bullied at school complain to his teacher that the bully took his homework and ripped it up?
tell people that the community is unconsciously biased, excluding people, only slightly different, from accessing needed services,?
“Victim culture” implies existence of a community of people who sit around, scheming, fabricating things to complain about to make themselves sound like victims, in order to bully people not in the “victim culture”.
gee sounds exactly like what the people complaining about “victim culture” are doing. hmmm [scare quotes, used literally]
Akira MacKenzie @ 17;
And of course, all this applies only to the impoverished, marginalized, and oppressed in society – the second one of the privileged gets the slightest boo-boo (such boo-boos including, but not limited to:- people accurately identifying their classist, racist, sexist/ trans-misogynistic, and/or ableist bigotry and calling them on it, the rare occasions where they are actually caught and prosecuted for a crime they committed despite their privilege, and any circumstance where a woman rejects their sexual advances for any reason, naturally) then they will scream about it from the roof tops, and of course everyone is supposed to stop what they are doing and listen attentively and sympathetically about how awful and unfair the world is, no matter what is going on in their own lives at that moment, up to and including being on fire at the time.
But that isn’t a
victimentitlement culture dontchaknow, because reasons…There’s nothing particularly amazing here. Perhaps we should call him Run-of-the-Mill Racist, or Run-of-the-Mill Sexist, or even just Run-of-the-Mill Bigot. We dilute the power of the word “bigot” by dividing bigotry into it’s diverse categories.
Would someone be so kind as to explain (or give a good reference) what precisely is meant by “gentrification”, why it is bad, and what better alternatives are? I’m not familiar with the topic, other than it has something to do with wealthy people moving into a neighbourhood.
@21:
Dictionary alone it just means wealthy people buying properties in lower value areas and trying to up the property values. But in practice it often involves using rent levels, property tax levels, property condemnation, and even eminent domain to drive unwanted people out. And, unsurprisingly, this practice is done disproportionately to black neighborhoods, usually under the guise of “urban renewal”.
To expound more on what I was typing before (was in a hurry). Gentrification is usually done in the name of cleaning up rundown neighborhoods and revitalizing the area. But the way they tend to do it is by driving away the people they consider undesirable. Raise rents and taxes until the undesirables can’t afford it and have to leave, or in neighborhoods with low enough property values just condemn properties or seize them through eminent domain and kick the people out. Even in the cases where they’re forced to compensate the owners, they often get the property for peanuts while the owners are left homeless and without enough money to find a replacement home in a timely fashion. Then they bulldoze the old houses and replace them with shopping centers and high rent apartments, and sure enough the property values go up and everyone’s happy. Everyone, that is, except for all the poor, often black folks that got driven or outright thrown out of their homes.
Have you ever seen the Amazing @$$hole defend the rights of black people not to be murdered in cold blood by white cops?
themadtapper — They don’t always bulldoze. In San Francisco, that was the pattern in the 50s and 60s, but then they realized that refurbished Victorians are worth millions. Also, you left out the bank practice of redlining (usually black or Latino) neighborhoods which means these folks can’t get financing to maintain their properties, much less upgrade them.
There is a condition where he insta-bans folk: Membership to the Slympit. Mind you, it’s not like he’s vetting folks when they start posting. If you were a Slymer but never said anything objectionable PZ’d never know about that affiliation.
What happens though, is that the shitstains in training come here, troll hard, and then retreat to the Pit to claim their “Banned by PZ” merit badge. It’s kinda sad.
themadtapper@#23:
it just means wealthy people buying properties in lower value areas and trying to up the property values. But in practice it often involves using rent levels, property tax levels, property condemnation, and even eminent domain to drive unwanted people out. And, unsurprisingly, this practice is done disproportionately to black neighborhoods, usually under the guise of “urban renewal”.
I remember in Baltimore, they did an “urban homesteading” program where you could (if you had the money and promised to restore it) get one of the big old downtown brownstones for next to nothing plus tax breaks. So then there were neighborhoods of wealthy people, who immediately demanded services and further urban renewal for their neighborhoods. What a scam.
I am pretty sure that there might be a way to re-vitalize old neighborhoods that did not involve kicking out the existing people and just moving in a different bunch who will pay more for the same thing.
That might involve actually doing something different though to you know help solve the underlying causes of the problems that led to neighborhoods that need to be re-vitalized in the first place.
What is happening now is just moving people around it fixes nothing at all except for making some opportunists a lot of money .
I guess in the abstract gentrification sounds OK but overlooking the actual practice and the facts on the ground is irrational bullshit and probably bigotry at the root.
uncle frogy