Recently, Thunderf00t released a video who argued the case that "Feminism" is poisoning the Secular Community by "creating a boogeymen" and enacting upon actions akin to dogmatic or religious practices (as many have witnessed to both their own splinter group and upon critics). This video can be found here:
[youtube][/youtube]
This video, in my opinion, told its point very well and accurately demonstrated evidence to back this claim. It was met (not surprisingly) with a tirade of backlash from folks over at FTB and Skepchick. My evidence for this, is sources from the slyme pits community's own Justin Vacula who was vlogging a response to Michael Nugent of Skepchick:
[youtube][/youtube]
I also would like to add upon this my own evidence. It has, regrettably, made me change my view to one person who once inspired me to de-convert myself from my family's religion of Islam to Atheism, Matt Dilahunty (though proper credit also goes to George Carlin, Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and many well thought authors of literature, such as Virginia Wolf, Omar Khayyam, Mary Shelly, and Monique Wittig). After the "Schrodinger's Curious" debacle over at the A+ forum, I thought that Matt Dilahunty would see reason, and actually question not only his point of view, but of the movement he followed. Well, consider me disappointed when he posts his response video:
[youtube][/youtube]
Despite the fact I already am annoyed that the man makes himself a public risk and endangerment (driving while doing these "brain dumps"), words cannot express how disgusted I am with his logic and reasoning. Matt alleges that Thunderf00t is dishonest because Thunderf00t's video portrayed his post (an example to supplant his argument that "Feminism (and in my opinion A+) is poisoning the Secular Community" all because it ignored adding the citation of the following:
- How Matt was feeling (...really?)
How Matt was having a bad day (....really?!)
And that Matt worded it wrong (.....REALLY?! Looked finely worded to me with the intent it carried)
Turns out I wasn't the only one calling him out on it. He had a response video from one of my subscribed channels (and also probably a member of your prestigious forum), "Justicar":
[youtube][/youtube]
Despite every rational argument that Justicar and many users have made to this man, he went off an the comments page of that video, and posted the same spiel we heard in his brain dump. He said, and I quote:
Well, I for one, had enough of this bollocks and posted a reply (my YT username being Keikoandgilly):It's pretty simple... I made a post that was poorly worded and resulted in blocking both the people I wanted to block and the people I didn't want to block, so I unblocked everyone. The fact that I didn't want to block those people for this reason doesn't mean I'm opposed to blocking some people for some reasons. The dishonesty was in representing the post, without the retraction, as if it were representative - when it's not. Done here, feel free to e-mail {He said this to no one in particular,as Justicar pointed out} .
I find it hypocritical that Matt, FTB, Skepchick et. all are running these sorts of campaigns. While not prohibiting our right to speak our minds, they are, must surely, trying to limit our rights of expression by these mass flagging, personal defamation of character, and tirade campaigns in public spaces such as conventions. Taking a page from Matt's response video, the irony can be found at the 7:25 mark:1. // made a post that was poorly worded and resulted in blocking both the people I wanted to block and the people I didn't want to block,\\
Then where was the dishonesty you allege? Your poor lapse of judgement violated people's right of expression (to type to you their opinion) which led you to retract the statement (with public apology). While commendable, it doesn't alleviate the fact you still did it. Your post and excuses back the argument "A+" and et all are poison.
He (and many others I know) are saying this response with a straight face.It's not a violation of your free speech rights if individuals determine "No you are not going to do that in my house" and for convention owners state that "No you can not do this at our convention". We would like an environment where we would like people to feel welcome, a place that has no harassment, where generally people behave. That is not the same as taking away your free speech rights. You don't have to go to those conventions- Y-you act like you have...not only some right to go to the convention, but have the convention be what you want it to be
My thoughts after all this are as follows:
1st: Matt, and any A+ Blogger that lays eyes upon this, It IS a violation of my free speech rights as you are trying to censor rational criticism, and any form of expression that criticises your group's philosophy and views with regards to expression. Wearing jewelry or shirts that call you lot out on your tripe is a form of expression, as is typing on your facebook pages and youtube channels and whatever. If these were irrational (trollish) comments, it's understandable to remove them off your page (like any other sane rational being (or have a lark an be witty with said comments), but quite frankly these tirades have extended to any rational being that questions your modus operandi. if your "holy saints" throws a tissy with claims of "victimisation", then I will call you on your bollocks and have you lot write a formal written apology for the victimisation to the following:
- Richard Dawkins - (whom despite apologising for his comments after "Elevatorgate" (<- This I highly call into question) and wanted to make up for it with donations to charity, you lot demonise him like the bloody plague)
Ray Comfort {Brought up by Justicar}- For still bringing up the Banana incident in the form of a joke to denounce his platform.
Justin Vacula - For forcing him to resign from his position, that despite his apology for his misconduct, you continue to be unempathic towards.
The Wooly Bumblebee - Because Melody Hensley made a poor lapse in rational judgement, sacrificing her job position to promote a massive flag campaign just because she didn't like the form of expression that criticised her.
Stef McGraw - For not only belittling her rational response to Rebecca Watson to be inline with "trolls", you made a huge scene out of her "in an open, public space" whilst she was attending. It was not, "warm, welcoming, or inviting" for Stef when Becca, basking in her position as a speaker, added insult to injury by asking for questions. Any rational mind (regardless of gender) knows it would be suicide to challenge her and not face the fury of beings known to also be quite irrational if misled.
2. PUBLIC CONVENTIONS are not "Your House" either. It is NOT up to you to determine what rules are applied in public conventions. That is up to the convention's committee to decide on. And I would like to note, just as you have the right to express your views and propose to the committee what they should enforce (no "fake" jewelry, shirts that "don't offend your group members", can't say "offensive" words, "no arse grabbing" in conventions, etc.), you have to give leeway to individuals that wish to rationally express their thoughts on the matter and also propose solutions to their thoughts (eg. what do you mean by "fake"?, you lot wear "Anti-Religious" shirts all the time and don't seem to care about offending their group members)
3. If I said, "Fuck you, you infantile pillock", I expect you (and anyone for that matter) to retort with their right to do the same to tell me off as they see fit (offensive or not, it's your bloody right to do so, regardless of gender), and "No Arse Grabbing?" Are you lot bloody serious? This is a redundant, unnecessary that already is alluded in both the prior and newly changed harassment policies of conventions).
4. If you are going to come off as (and place yourself in a position of) "white knights", you already put yourself in a position that dictates a consequence. The moment you do anything that challenges your principles, you will be held accountable for it. Flat out. No excuses, no mercy. You lot brought that upon yourselves when you decided you picked the Richard Claverie's charter of "Us vs Them".
5. Building on thought four: By doing an "Us vs Them" mentality, you are no different from religious dogma when you marginalise even smaller groups like Humanists (I myself am one) and falsely alude Humanism to "religious trappings" (irony) found in humanism (lower case because that is religious humanism).
6. And when it is abundantly clear you make a mess in YOUR OWN HOUSE (Source: Justin Vacula's "A+ Scribe is A+ Bullying" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujtf10ykUxM), don't come off to public conventions and act like you lot are bloody parents of the year. You are basically (putting it lightly), acting like children, vindicative towards anyone that wants none of your nonsense in a place that was once lively and diverse with many views other than YOUR OWN.
7. And finally, Matt. The same advice can go towards YOU. You, Skepchicks, FTB, PZ, and *insert whatever here* should not feel entitled when you waste your time off from work, traveling costs, hotel costs, and convention fees to engage with people that share the same stance as you, but not the same views. You don't like that idea? Then don't say that shite to people you oppose because that's what you told us (and NO, Matt, you DIDN'T phrase that incorrectly. The "context and tone" of how you said it clearly showed). Your positions be damned for all I bloody well care, you lot are NOT above criticism, nor are your views.
This nonsense is why I, a Humanist, a moral philosophy derived from the stance of Atheism (lack of belief in God/Gods (in my case: Supernatural as well)), am disheartened, and have hindered any chance of me from going to an Atheist or secular convention in the USA.
~Zanoh
