Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Pamela Gay isnt an Atheist - which is probably why she keeps a little distance from skepchicksDick Strawkins wrote:The only well known atheist feminists around the table are those previously mentioned, McCreight, Watson, Marcotte and Greta Christina.
I thought I recognized Pamela Gay at the back but it's not her.
Just what I suspected.Michael K Gray wrote:Like magnets.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I said "you", not "your". But I can see where it would be confusing to some.Michael K Gray wrote:Only a very select few perverts wish to be in the position where they are able to view franc's back.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Glad to see you back, Franc.
Fucking aspies, how do they work?
Although, you sure you don't mean bipolar? (mendatory smiley not included)Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Just what I suspected.Michael K Gray wrote:Like magnets.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I said "you", not "your". But I can see where it would be confusing to some.Michael K Gray wrote:Only a very select few perverts wish to be in the position where they are able to view franc's back.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Glad to see you back, Franc.
Fucking aspies, how do they work?
She is not an atheist but the skepchicks don't really have anything to do with religion.mutleyeng wrote:Pamela Gay isnt an Atheist - which is probably why she keeps a little distance from skepchicksDick Strawkins wrote:The only well known atheist feminists around the table are those previously mentioned, McCreight, Watson, Marcotte and Greta Christina.
I thought I recognized Pamela Gay at the back but it's not her.
What.. you're a black chick? Can I have your number?Reap wrote:Sigh..another stupid fuck who assumes they know anything about me.....PZ should call his blog Psychingula cause him and his commneters think they can read minds and know the details of another person's life. morons
Atheism isn't even a tool.Simple.
Because the self-defining standard of this movement is the skeptic attitude.
When the mutual enemy is the religious camp you end up with “buddies†that are simply septic about any claim. Including the axioms of human society.
That is why i was skeptical about the “New Atheist†movement and still refuse to “join†the A+ movement. Way too focused on skepticism. Both of them. As if skepticism would be anything else than a tool that you could use. In a rational approach there is an end to skepticism, that is the moment when you have to act.
Humanism HAS to be the driving force for the movement or we are not going anywhere. Not skepticism sexed up with some social activism. And the majority of the movement is “active†about those issues only on the internet.
Fuck me big time, I stay with my die-hard humanist ideals. No war. Ever. No denial of opportunities. To no one. Sharing resources. Promote happiness, be nice to people. Learn how to cook, grow some veggies if you can.
Skeptics were ranked down in my world to useful allies, when it matters. I don’t care who you are and what you think when we join to rebuild a community struck by a tornado. For some reason or another there are always Christians showing up to shovel the dirt, build the shelter, cook the food and pump the water. What are you folks doing? Can you align with a southern baptist when it is about to get a child food, shelter and safety? Great, because that is what this is about.
I don’t care if that shelter for abused woman across the block is run by evangelical Christians, for all the the wrong reasons they claim to be true, I support it, because they do the right thing. It is not about making a case for yourself, it is about resolving the dire situation of someone else.
You ‘arguments’ are almost always irrelevant. Get your ass out of that chair and do something for the better of mankind. Skepticism is a god-damn fucking tool and not an objective.
Sonebody needs to photoshop a cauldren into the middle of that.
Oh fuck! Is there any chance of an edit button? What does everybody think?bhoytony wrote:
Sonebody needs to photoshop a cauldren into the middle of that.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!bhoytony wrote:Oh fuck! Is there any chance of an edit button? What does everybody think?bhoytony wrote:
Sonebody needs to photoshop a cauldren into the middle of that.
They are so casually racist and sexist too. Disgusting.Reap wrote:Sigh..another stupid fuck who assumes they know anything about me.....PZ should call his blog Psychingula cause him and his commneters think they can read minds and know the details of another person's life. morons
Saw the breakdown, but when did she edit his book?rocko2466 wrote: He says this three fucking days after Melody Hensley - who helped him edit his fucking book - had a fucking breakdown on Twitter and had her boyfriend take her to the ER.
I declare his new name as Poe Z Myers.
Pot? Kettle? Even if the 'pit somehow toned down to the level of Hall's blog, it'd still be considered "going out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt"... wtf-ever.This whole thing is ridiculous. Those offended on Amy Roth’s behalf have behaved incredibly childishly towards Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall’s defenders have gone out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt.
Of the two I find Roth’s party less distasteful and judging from the complete disregard for others (Once again, thank you, Hitch, for giving jerks an excuse to be callous human beings) I’m glad to not be part of the skeptical community. You people are outright cruel and hurtful just to win a web argument.
In the pub last night I was chatted up by a woman half my age, black and by definition female. Luckily I managed to hide my misogynistic, racist, patriarchal attitudes but it was pretty damn close. Thanks to FtB and A+ I was able to check my privilege every second. The effort gave me nervous ticks but she did not want to appear ableist by commenting on that. Phew. Thanks A+ I owe you.bhoytony wrote:What.. you're a black chick? Can I have your number?Reap wrote:Sigh..another stupid fuck who assumes they know anything about me.....PZ should call his blog Psychingula cause him and his commneters think they can read minds and know the details of another person's life. morons
It's jut another argument from emotion which Hitchens railed against. It does not come to the correct conclusions except by chance. If his argument is 'They are a less bad therefore correct' it is a complete fallacy. One great loss in all of this is the inability to avoid Ad Hominems, a mainstay of any critical thought process. PG et al indulge in this all the time and on reflection he always did. They should not be surprised when they get called on it and their arguments treated as fallacious.windy wrote:Saw the breakdown, but when did she edit his book?rocko2466 wrote: He says this three fucking days after Melody Hensley - who helped him edit his fucking book - had a fucking breakdown on Twitter and had her boyfriend take her to the ER.
I declare his new name as Poe Z Myers.
In other not-really-news: this by any chance 'our' julian?Pot? Kettle? Even if the 'pit somehow toned down to the level of Hall's blog, it'd still be considered "going out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt"... wtf-ever.This whole thing is ridiculous. Those offended on Amy Roth’s behalf have behaved incredibly childishly towards Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall’s defenders have gone out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt.
Of the two I find Roth’s party less distasteful and judging from the complete disregard for others (Once again, thank you, Hitch, for giving jerks an excuse to be callous human beings) I’m glad to not be part of the skeptical community. You people are outright cruel and hurtful just to win a web argument.
Didn't stop them from attacking Hall herself, after all.windy wrote:Pot? Kettle? Even if the 'pit somehow toned down to the level of Hall's blog, it'd still be considered "going out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt"... wtf-ever.
Looking at that image it should come as no surprise to anybody that Greta writes a regular Fashion Friday spot on her blog. I'd say that her "look" in that picture is channelling my Gran's "doing the housework" style from before she died 20 years ago aged 80.Dick Strawkins wrote:http://i.imgur.com/wIWfFQR.jpg
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... ent-113435Because she’s been so above this all, right? No talk of witch hunts or professional victims looking to be offended, right? None of that ever happened, I assume.
This whole thing is ridiculous. Those offended on Amy Roth’s behalf have behaved incredibly childishly towards Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall’s defenders have gone out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt.
Of the two I find Roth’s party less distasteful and judging from the complete disregard for others (Once again, thank you, Hitch, for giving jerks an excuse to be callous human beings) I’m glad to not be part of the skeptical community. You people are outright cruel and hurtful just to win a web argument.
Yes, their extensive lexicon of new words and redefinition of existing words is the same behaviour you would see in a cult (which is why I chose my signature) It's easy to invent words, slap a meaning on it with no evidence it is valid and use them for any argument you wish. However it means 99% of what they write is total crap. They even have that covered by calling it 'Advanced Sociology 301' which has the neat trick of blaming the reader for not accepting their junk ideology. As someone noticed earlier they also have the stopper in the wording 'double down' which means 'I have no valid response to your argument and as you won't agree with me immediately I won't talk to you any more but I will happily patronise and abuse you instead.'Karmakin wrote:Didn't stop them from attacking Hall herself, after all.windy wrote:Pot? Kettle? Even if the 'pit somehow toned down to the level of Hall's blog, it'd still be considered "going out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt"... wtf-ever.
It's not so much that they're hypocrites, it's that the tribalism trumps any notion of right and wrong or rationality or irrationality. Whatever they do is fine and dandy, whatever we do is wrong and horrible. What is being talked about there is a classic "tone" argument...something that they've railed against in the past. You also see it in the attitude about "hyperskepticism"....then going and demanding triple-plated proof for anything that someone who disagrees says.
Congrats twice, Rayshul!Skep tickle wrote:!!! :shock: :) :Drayshul, commenting on ZJ's suggestion that people try opposite-sex hormones, wrote:Theoretically I'd be interested in that - I'm pretty sure my gender's not important to me in the slightest, but I doubt I'd want to be a man because a) I'm 100% certain that women get a better deal out of life in virtually every way and b) I'd be a *short* man, and I just don't think I could accept that. (I'm also a leetle worried because I'm fairly aggressive and swear a lot, and I realise my gender probably lets me get away with a fuck load of behaviour that would not be considered "socially appropriate" from a man.) Of course currently pregnant with twins so it's not like I could do any hormone shit. But I'd be interested in an experiment if one was ever done that involved that sort of thing.
If you'd mentioned it earlier, I missed the announcement.
Congratulations! When are you due, and how are you doing?
And, of course, you are currently doing some serious "hormone shit" - only it's not at all the approach ZJ' was suggesting :lol:
It's his childish sour-grapes flounce after he realized he and his band of thugs were excluded from TAM2013.CommanderTuvok wrote:Does this actually PZ is flouncing from the skeptic community?
Finally, a straw man Pissy can't trash.Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/KnlShhE.jpg
Don't leave us hangin' like that Jack. Did you get teh digits?Jack wrote:In the pub last night I was chatted up by a woman half my age, black and by definition female. Luckily I managed to hide my misogynistic, racist, patriarchal attitudes but it was pretty damn close. Thanks to FtB and A+ I was able to check my privilege every second. The effort gave me nervous ticks but she did not want to appear ableist by commenting on that. Phew. Thanks A+ I owe you.bhoytony wrote:What.. you're a black chick? Can I have your number?Reap wrote:Sigh..another stupid fuck who assumes they know anything about me.....PZ should call his blog Psychingula cause him and his commneters think they can read minds and know the details of another person's life. morons
I could so easily have taken her as she was, been colour blind and ignored her needs as a woman in an oppressive society. Oh, actually, I did and we got on great. Funny how that works.
One of my last posts on Crommunist, was about how he was talking about the different "levels" of Social Justice, I pointed out that much of their culture/movement was actually at below a 101 level. This was a couple of days after he was SHOCKED..SHOCKED I tell you that a study showed that minorities are racist at about an equal amount as whites. (Which of course most people would tell you...DUH)Jack wrote:Yes, their extensive lexicon of new words and redefinition of existing words is the same behaviour you would see in a cult (which is why I chose my signature) It's easy to invent words, slap a meaning on it with no evidence it is valid and use them for any argument you wish. However it means 99% of what they write is total crap. They even have that covered by calling it 'Advanced Sociology 301' which has the neat trick of blaming the reader for not accepting their junk ideology. As someone noticed earlier they also have the stopper in the wording 'double down' which means 'I have no valid response to your argument and as you won't agree with me immediately I won't talk to you any more but I will happily patronise and abuse you instead.'Karmakin wrote:Didn't stop them from attacking Hall herself, after all.windy wrote:Pot? Kettle? Even if the 'pit somehow toned down to the level of Hall's blog, it'd still be considered "going out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt"... wtf-ever.
It's not so much that they're hypocrites, it's that the tribalism trumps any notion of right and wrong or rationality or irrationality. Whatever they do is fine and dandy, whatever we do is wrong and horrible. What is being talked about there is a classic "tone" argument...something that they've railed against in the past. You also see it in the attitude about "hyperskepticism"....then going and demanding triple-plated proof for anything that someone who disagrees says.
Just like a cult.
I'm attached but she made it clear she'd be in the pub next week. Of course my ego is now so big I can't get through doors without my head sticking.Submariner wrote:Don't leave us hangin' like that Jack. Did you get teh digits?Jack wrote:In the pub last night I was chatted up by a woman half my age, black and by definition female. Luckily I managed to hide my misogynistic, racist, patriarchal attitudes but it was pretty damn close. Thanks to FtB and A+ I was able to check my privilege every second. The effort gave me nervous ticks but she did not want to appear ableist by commenting on that. Phew. Thanks A+ I owe you.bhoytony wrote:What.. you're a black chick? Can I have your number?Reap wrote:Sigh..another stupid fuck who assumes they know anything about me.....PZ should call his blog Psychingula cause him and his commneters think they can read minds and know the details of another person's life. morons
I could so easily have taken her as she was, been colour blind and ignored her needs as a woman in an oppressive society. Oh, actually, I did and we got on great. Funny how that works.
That's been around for a while, but it's a bewdy mate. Obviously he meant no Austral-asians.Apples wrote:For the Aussies:
[youtube]0YM9Ereg2Zo[/youtube]
h/t Mano Singham
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/201 ... no-asians/
They get out of the racist by minorities using three tricks:Karmakin wrote:One of my last posts on Crommunist, was about how he was talking about the different "levels" of Social Justice, I pointed out that much of their culture/movement was actually at below a 101 level. This was a couple of days after he was SHOCKED..SHOCKED I tell you that a study showed that minorities are racist at about an equal amount as whites. (Which of course most people would tell you...DUH)Jack wrote:Yes, their extensive lexicon of new words and redefinition of existing words is the same behaviour you would see in a cult (which is why I chose my signature) It's easy to invent words, slap a meaning on it with no evidence it is valid and use them for any argument you wish. However it means 99% of what they write is total crap. They even have that covered by calling it 'Advanced Sociology 301' which has the neat trick of blaming the reader for not accepting their junk ideology. As someone noticed earlier they also have the stopper in the wording 'double down' which means 'I have no valid response to your argument and as you won't agree with me immediately I won't talk to you any more but I will happily patronise and abuse you instead.'Karmakin wrote:Didn't stop them from attacking Hall herself, after all.windy wrote:Pot? Kettle? Even if the 'pit somehow toned down to the level of Hall's blog, it'd still be considered "going out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt"... wtf-ever.
It's not so much that they're hypocrites, it's that the tribalism trumps any notion of right and wrong or rationality or irrationality. Whatever they do is fine and dandy, whatever we do is wrong and horrible. What is being talked about there is a classic "tone" argument...something that they've railed against in the past. You also see it in the attitude about "hyperskepticism"....then going and demanding triple-plated proof for anything that someone who disagrees says.
Just like a cult.
The oppressor/oppressed model is the intelligent design of sociology.
Aww thanks.Submariner wrote:Jack you ol'sea-dog , you!
I bestow upon you the title of "Honorary Sailor".
Which leads to the hypothesis that the single greatest obstacle to blacks' involvement in the secular movement is people like PZ Myers and his hostile, alienating, arrogant brand of gnu atheism. Same probably goes for women, if you believe Secular Census type data. Not to mention folks like Jen McWrong, who broadcast the notion that to get the darkies interested you have to talk about drugs and jail.Pew Survey wrote:While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another, according to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Where is the McWrong "broadcast"?Apples wrote:A post from Lilandra at Ace of Clades quotes a Pew survey about African-American religious affiliation:Which leads to the hypothesis that the single greatest obstacle to blacks' involvement in the secular movement is people like PZ Myers and his hostile, alienating, arrogant brand of gnu atheism. Same probably goes for women, if you believe Secular Census type data. Not to mention folks like Jen McWrong, who broadcast the notion that to get the darkies interested you have to talk about drugs and jail.Pew Survey wrote:While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another, according to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2013 ... ent-black/
http://www.freezepage.com/1361626496WWJSYNNZBK
+1. If FtB stands for anything, it is that people who are are different from them are awful people. No doubt, minorities want to hear that message :roll:Apples wrote:A post from Lilandra at Ace of Clades quotes a Pew survey about African-American religious affiliation:Which leads to the hypothesis that the single greatest obstacle to blacks' involvement in the secular movement is people like PZ Myers and his hostile, alienating, arrogant brand of gnu atheism. Same probably goes for women, if you believe Secular Census type data. Not to mention folks like Jen McWrong, who broadcast the notion that to get the darkies interested you have to talk about drugs and jail.Pew Survey wrote:While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another, according to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2013 ... ent-black/
http://www.freezepage.com/1361626496WWJSYNNZBK
[youtube]fXo4CfjqN5c[/youtube]
Interesting hypothesis, but I think I'll go with their RELIGION being the single greatest obstacle to their involvement in the secular movement...ApplesApples wrote:A post from Lilandra at Ace of Clades quotes a Pew survey about African-American religious affiliation:Which leads to the hypothesis that the single greatest obstacle to blacks' involvement in the secular movement is people like PZ Myers and his hostile, alienating, arrogant brand of gnu atheism. Same probably goes for women, if you believe Secular Census type data.Pew Survey wrote:While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another, according to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.
If the oppressor/oppressed model is the ID of sociology, the "privilege" narrative is the analog to straight up young earth creationism.Karmakin wrote:The oppressor/oppressed model is the intelligent design of sociology.
It was this post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/201 ... diversity/Submariner wrote:Where is the McWrong "broadcast"?
No one likes to be patronised. They really can't grasp that treating every minority as a victim is offensive to people in those groups who are quite capable of sticking up for themselves as long as there is an equal footing. I want an equal footing, no more and no less. Most people do. Only people with 'issues', those with no ability to understand the subtlety and complexity of human relations and those trying to get an unfair advantage buy into their ideology.Apples wrote:A post from Lilandra at Ace of Clades quotes a Pew survey about African-American religious affiliation:Which leads to the hypothesis that the single greatest obstacle to blacks' involvement in the secular movement is people like PZ Myers and his hostile, alienating, arrogant brand of gnu atheism. Same probably goes for women, if you believe Secular Census type data. Not to mention folks like Jen McWrong, who broadcast the notion that to get the darkies interested you have to talk about drugs and jail.Pew Survey wrote:While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another, according to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2013 ... ent-black/
http://www.freezepage.com/1361626496WWJSYNNZBK
[youtube]fXo4CfjqN5c[/youtube]
I don't have a problem with "gnu atheism" in general, though I think the hostility towards religious moderates is probably counterproductive. That aside, I have been aware of the fact that blacks are generally far more religious than whites, even white American southerners, and that this is only one of several cultural factors which explain their relative absence from the 'skeptic movement' a helluva lot better than polemical charges of racism. Hispanics tend to be more religious also, though Hispanic is a racially ambiguous category which overlaps with black and white.windy wrote:Interesting hypothesis, but I think I'll go with their RELIGION being the single greatest obstacle to their involvement in the secular movement...ApplesApples wrote:A post from Lilandra at Ace of Clades quotes a Pew survey about African-American religious affiliation:Which leads to the hypothesis that the single greatest obstacle to blacks' involvement in the secular movement is people like PZ Myers and his hostile, alienating, arrogant brand of gnu atheism. Same probably goes for women, if you believe Secular Census type data.Pew Survey wrote:While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another, according to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Actually, it was, uh, Chris Clarke. Again. Which is kind of ironic, considering the post consisted only of this:Apples wrote:I'm rather amused that Radford's "PZ uses strawman arguments" satire provoked both PZ and Ophelia to reply -- PZ offering the devastating zinger that hay and straw are distinguishable (in a true feat of asshattery, he manages to "strawman" a piece mocking him for making strawman arguments).
Who here can tell me the difference between hay and straw?
Thanks for the linky thingy.Apples wrote:It was this post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/201 ... diversity/Submariner wrote:Where is the McWrong "broadcast"?
This was iconografer's take on it:
Who here can tell me the difference between Chris Clarke and P Zed?Tigzy wrote:Actually, it was, uh, Chris Clarke. Again. Which is kind of ironic, considering the post consisted only of this:Apples wrote:I'm rather amused that Radford's "PZ uses strawman arguments" satire provoked both PZ and Ophelia to reply -- PZ offering the devastating zinger that hay and straw are distinguishable (in a true feat of asshattery, he manages to "strawman" a piece mocking him for making strawman arguments).
Who here can tell me the difference between hay and straw?
Maybe PZ would win more black converts if he started mocking gospel music and "whoopers."windy wrote:Interesting hypothesis, but I think I'll go with their RELIGION being the single greatest obstacle to their involvement in the secular movement...Apples
In the UK it is similar but it is also generational. The younger generation tend to be more secular no matter what race they may identify with. The big bonus in the UK is open tolerance for beliefs, to the point people very rarely discuss religion in any social environment, even with friends. Of my immediate family I can honestly say I do not know what religious beliefs many of them hold as it simply never comes up. The same is true with my friends.lurking coward wrote:I don't have a problem with "gnu atheism" in general, though I think the hostility towards religious moderates is probably counterproductive. That aside, I have been aware of the fact that blacks are generally far more religious than whites, even white American southerners, and that this is only one of several cultural factors which explain their relative absence from the 'skeptic movement' a helluva lot better than polemical charges of racism. Hispanics tend to be more religious also, though Hispanic is a racially ambiguous category which overlaps with black and white.windy wrote:Interesting hypothesis, but I think I'll go with their RELIGION being the single greatest obstacle to their involvement in the secular movement...ApplesApples wrote:A post from Lilandra at Ace of Clades quotes a Pew survey about African-American religious affiliation:Which leads to the hypothesis that the single greatest obstacle to blacks' involvement in the secular movement is people like PZ Myers and his hostile, alienating, arrogant brand of gnu atheism. Same probably goes for women, if you believe Secular Census type data.Pew Survey wrote:While the U.S. is generally considered a highly religious nation, African-Americans are markedly more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, including level of affiliation with a religion, attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer and religion’s importance in life. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups. Compared with other racial and ethnic groups, African-Americans are among the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87% of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another, according to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Rebecca Watson: 'Right, that's my round in. What are the rest of you having?'
Here, here. :clap: :clap: :clap:Jack wrote: No one likes to be patronised. They really can't grasp that treating every minority as a victim is offensive to people in those groups who are quite capable of sticking up for themselves as long as there is an equal footing. I want an equal footing, no more and no less. Most people do. Only people with 'issues', those with no ability to understand the subtlety and complexity of human relations and those trying to get an unfair advantage buy into their ideology.
I wouldn't care about that at all but to steal the word 'Atheism' and 'Freethought' as well as trying to inject their ideology into a community which has no interest in their simplistic narrative is dishonest. If they renamed Atheism Plus to 'SJW+' and 'FtB' to 'Rad Fem Blogs' and left the rationalists get on with what they have always done no one would give a crap. If they stopped trying to hijack conferences with exclusions and histrionics no one would care.
The various movements we have all been part of or interested in had the great strength of being roughly united in how we discuss, openly and without censure, what we believe. That allowed us to communicate effectively together no matter what our race, colour or background. We are not idealogs and are happy to question all our beliefs and consider what people say far more important than who they are.
FtB and A+ go against everything we stand for which is why I am motivated to speak out against it. For me what they believe is almost incidental to the way they project themselves and behave. They are not interested in Atheism or any form of rationalism, some have even said that openly. Blogs by PZ are 90% Ad Hominem and 10% strawman. They have no place in a rationalist community who are doing it's best to try and deal with the overwhelming issues we all face in this world.
Weird - cuz the first comment is Clarke saying, "Ah, I see His Cephalopodness beat me to it by mere seconds."Tigzy wrote:Actually, it was, uh, Chris Clarke. Again. Which is kind of ironic, considering the post consisted only of this:Apples wrote:I'm rather amused that Radford's "PZ uses strawman arguments" satire provoked both PZ and Ophelia to reply -- PZ offering the devastating zinger that hay and straw are distinguishable (in a true feat of asshattery, he manages to "strawman" a piece mocking him for making strawman arguments).
Who here can tell me the difference between hay and straw?
Way to flaunt your fertile, childbearing privilege there Rayshul. Not all of us have a uterus you know?Skep tickle wrote:!!! :shock: :) :Drayshul, commenting on ZJ's suggestion that people try opposite-sex hormones, wrote:Theoretically I'd be interested in that - I'm pretty sure my gender's not important to me in the slightest, but I doubt I'd want to be a man because a) I'm 100% certain that women get a better deal out of life in virtually every way and b) I'd be a *short* man, and I just don't think I could accept that. (I'm also a leetle worried because I'm fairly aggressive and swear a lot, and I realise my gender probably lets me get away with a fuck load of behaviour that would not be considered "socially appropriate" from a man.) Of course currently pregnant with twins so it's not like I could do any hormone shit. But I'd be interested in an experiment if one was ever done that involved that sort of thing.
If you'd mentioned it earlier, I missed the announcement.
Congratulations! When are you due, and how are you doing?
And, of course, you are currently doing some serious "hormone shit" - only it's not at all the approach ZJ' was suggesting :lol:
They can't even tolerate diversity of opinion.codelette wrote:In regards to McBoobquake and the rest of her gang. I daresay that their obsession with "diversity" and ill-informed ways as to how to lure more blacks/hispanics into their world is born from a morbid antropological curiosity. They only see white people in places because they themselves decided to live in places where the majority is white. Seattle, Minneapolis...there's even graphical evidence as to how white the places are. Want to experience diversity? Move to the South.
But they really don't wanna do that. They seem to like the idea of mingling with more minorities only in theory.
Yes congratulations Rayshul. Maybe you could pop over to A+ and ask them about childcare. Their brains would explode having to think about something other than themselves. That would be followed by patronising advice about how to bring them up as good Social Warriors fighting injustice wherever they invent it. They only care about teaching what to think not how to think. Religious extremists would be proud of them.katamari Damassi wrote:Way to flaunt your fertile, childbearing privilege there Rayshul. Not all of us have a uterus you know?Skep tickle wrote:!!! :shock: :) :Drayshul, commenting on ZJ's suggestion that people try opposite-sex hormones, wrote:Theoretically I'd be interested in that - I'm pretty sure my gender's not important to me in the slightest, but I doubt I'd want to be a man because a) I'm 100% certain that women get a better deal out of life in virtually every way and b) I'd be a *short* man, and I just don't think I could accept that. (I'm also a leetle worried because I'm fairly aggressive and swear a lot, and I realise my gender probably lets me get away with a fuck load of behaviour that would not be considered "socially appropriate" from a man.) Of course currently pregnant with twins so it's not like I could do any hormone shit. But I'd be interested in an experiment if one was ever done that involved that sort of thing.
If you'd mentioned it earlier, I missed the announcement.
Congratulations! When are you due, and how are you doing?
And, of course, you are currently doing some serious "hormone shit" - only it's not at all the approach ZJ' was suggesting :lol:
That's my A+theism way of saying congratulations.
You are the wind beneath my wings.Steersman wrote: :icon-lol:
That has to qualify as a classic left-handed compliment – thanks, I think.
Though to be fair to Andrew, his posts, I think, have a fair amount of meat to them, just that they frequently require more time and effort to parse than I, at least, frequently have time for ….
