I love it! We should only treat one another this well.
Sadly, it’s become clear that if it were a feminist atheist burning Dawkins’ book to protest his sexism, there actually would be death threats.
The atheist divide is very disturbing to me. There are extremists in every environment. I prefer to keep company with intellectuals and those who accept reasoned debate. I feel like the issue has been hijacked on both ends of the spectrum and I prefer to stay out of it. I know that I personally stand for human equality. Beyond that I stay out of the heckling.
Fence-sitting pronouncements such as “I feel like the issue has been hijacked on both ends of the spectrum and I prefer to stay out of it”, without clear examples or signs of reasoning, is the biggest cop-out. Quit joking that you’re impartial to the issues when it isn’t clear that you’ve given any of it more than a cursory glance.
I’ve given it more than a cursory glance. But not much more. It’s not central to what I’m doing. I have an opinion but it’s not the main point of what I do. If I comment on it, given the recent history of it in atheism, it will become a focal point. It’s not my main issue. It is something I have an opinion on but I don’t want to be dragged into it.
I think people at both ends are reacting emotionally and then defending it intellectually. It’s understandable but it’s clouding the real issue at times.
Very true Paul, love it
Paul, by saying that both ends are reacting emotionally you’re actually taking a stand. When bullies and bullied are reacting emotionally do you blame them both equally? If you say this is not the case here then you’re taking a stand on this issue. If you want to stay out of it, I don’t think that mentioning “sides” is the way to do it.
I’m blaming everyone on the extreme ends of both sides. Both are at fault. No one is blameless. I have stayed out of it because I don’t have the time. I do activism and work a full time job. I’m not just a blogger. This blog is bigger than me. I utilize it to have people help me reach out and stop the unconstitutional prostelytizing of our service members. I’m not going to muddle that wîth an issue that undermines my efforts, despite my personal feelings on the issue.
Perhaps at some time in the future I’ll go forward with my opinion, but not until a time of my choosing.
First, neutrality in the face of injustice and iniquity is not laudable. Second, anyone who could equivocate between those who harass, intimidate, and threaten violence and those who are victims of it; between those who want equality and those who want to maintain the oppressions of the status quo, is far from being neutral.
You have other things you want to focus on? Fine, no one would begrudge you. Everyone only has 24 hours in a day. But don’t pretend that you’re above it all when you come out with that equivocating bullshit. Take a cue from one of your brothers in arms. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. The very least you can do is stop painting “both sides” with the same brush. How hard would that be?
Oh and, by the way, my initial comment wasn’t directed at you, but rather was directed at the photo/meme thingy. It’s all very nice for atheists to feel superior to the religious extremists and then turn around and threaten all those uppity women in their own ranks, just like any good mullah would do. And when I say “nice” I mean “sad”.
When you come on my blog and you push that into my comments and I decide to respond in a non-controversial manner….then I feel that I am justified. I don’t want to take sides. If that is not the content of my blog then why must I be forced to take sides as you are justifying that I must?
I will paint the brush where it needs painted. There are guilty parties on both sides. We can’t even pretend there aren’t. I choose not to engage either side, however. I’m not a victim in this and I’m not an antagonizer. The whole thing is disparaging to me. Is that hard to comprehend? I’m not asking anyone to take my “non-side.” Personally, I’d love to just be part of a community that focuses on the good that atheists and humanists do. I’ll point out the ills of those who subjugate non-believers and I’ll fight them through my activism.
I get in spats with fundamentalist congressman, military commands, and military members. That’s my deal. That’s what I do.
You dropped a comment in my thread and I felt obligated to respond in a non-confrontational manner. That’s the best I can do.
Whatever happened to noble silence? I almost have to say there is no middle of the road. This whole atheist thing is quite new to me. Churches are benevolent. We have been listening to their rubbish since the 12 century. Born on a mountain top raised in a cave…. The three wise men from the EAST. Someone comes up with a story about the fourth one and nobody calls it blasphemy. They all thinks it a cute addition to the story and everyone forgets about it. I could have burnt the Communist Manifesto on Black Tuesday and nobody would have cared. (I wasn’t born. I made that up actually) Thank God for GOOGLE!
Some people are into a lot of drama and no action. Lets get out on the football field girls. We need better advertising for mud wrestling anyhow. I am not a vegan. I don’t know if there is a God. Big business is into big pharmaceuticals; tobacco, guns and liquor. School children are dying. Cops are putting us in jail. I can’t get a job with my education. All I can tell you is you paid way to much for it. When my father dies and I will be in the streets. Some preacher wants to burn the Torah or the Koran? Really? That’s a reflection on his repugnant little nose hairs. Maybe they were singed off in the process. He didn’t get every copy of it. I can’t find this little document your’re talking about online so its not worth reading. I found more information about the flying spaghetti monster. Please try to focus on compassion and wisdom and you may get some attention from somebody who will take a stand. I surf the web for things that make a difference. All the conservatives will be dead in thirty years anyhow and we are going to have decide which of their values were actually sustainable. Choose your battles. Learn the names of your opponents. Step into a church and discovery how these people feel about whats going on. Most of them are trapped in a world of fantasy. Enlighten them. Get started.
When you come on my blog and you push that into my comments
Push what, exactly? I had a reaction to what you posted (the statement on the joke photo/meme thingy about “zero death threats”). It was clearly on topic. And you can’t tell me that what I said wasn’t true. There are women in the atheist community getting death threats (and threats of rape and other violence) for dissing Richard Dawkins.
You could have let my comment lie there and not responded, if it was really something you didn’t want to discuss.
I decide to respond in a non-controversial mannerNot so. What you said was controversial. Even confrontational.I will paint the brush where it needs painted. There are guilty parties on both sides. We can’t even pretend there aren’t.You can’t judge both sides guilty without judging each side guilty. When you judge someone(s) guilty, well that’s not being neutral and aloof from controversy. Especially when it means deliberately ignoring that the two sides you’re judging equally guilty are nowhere near equally moral in their goals or their methods.
I decide to respond in a non-controversial manner
Not so. What you said was controversial. Even confrontational.I will paint the brush where it needs painted. There are guilty parties on both sides. We can’t even pretend there aren’t.You can’t judge both sides guilty without judging each side guilty. When you judge someone(s) guilty, well that’s not being neutral and aloof from controversy. Especially when it means deliberately ignoring that the two sides you’re judging equally guilty are nowhere near equally moral in their goals or their methods.
Not so. What you said was controversial. Even confrontational.
I will paint the brush where it needs painted. There are guilty parties on both sides. We can’t even pretend there aren’t.
You can’t judge both sides guilty without judging each side guilty. When you judge someone(s) guilty, well that’s not being neutral and aloof from controversy. Especially when it means deliberately ignoring that the two sides you’re judging equally guilty are nowhere near equally moral in their goals or their methods.
Where does my original blog post, which was a funny meme/filler, say anything about the issue of feminism, sexism, or threats? Where? How is what you said relevant to atheists being mad at a religious person burning the “god delusion.”
In reality it was probably an atheist burning the book. I got it. Why did you feel obligated to inject feminism into my blog which clearly steers away from that controversy?
I am concerned about the state of the community because of this issue. I’m allowed to say that. I can also say that I’ve seen mistakes made by people on either side. I don’t have to render judgment in support of either side. I’m not obligated to. But people seem compelled to force me to call someone or a specific side out. Why should I have to? There is a problem. I’m not the ref. I’m not a judge.
I feel as if I’m being lectured on pointing out that no one is perfect.
“Where does my original blog post, which was a funny meme/filler, say anything about the issue of feminism, sexism, or threats? ”
Riiightt, where would there be anything about threats in the OP *facepalm*
Paul, the meme fun rings hollow, because not true, because there were effing death threats from effing atheistd for similar “heresies”.
Granted, these death threats were not grounded in these persons atheism, contrary to some religious death threats (though some probably come from the same psychology as the atheism ones). This is an important distinction, alas, one that cannot be captured in a funny meme pic. Too bad, but
And I think it’s worth drawing attention to Paul’s latest post about DOMA. He seems to have no trouble with that issue which has very emotional reactionaries on both sides, obviously because he can identify one side as having noble goals and one side as being a bunch of repulsive shitstains. His failure to do that here is glaringly obvious by comparison.