Reddit MRAs, heeding the call to service, once again prove what dedicated activists they are. Check out the upvotes on this baby!
Today Urban Dictionary, tomorrow the world! (Also, check out those tags!)
Oh, and in case you were wondering, Reddit MRAs also wield a mean downvote; see definition numero dos.
Of course, Man Boobzers reign supreme where it really counts: the Rationalization Hamster meme!
I feel I should point out that there are religions that explicitly support religious freedom for everyone…
(I think Unitarian Christianity’s one of them? May be wrong.)
That’s a good idea for me to read Ballotpedia before November’s election. I saw some signs in front of a liquor store against one proposition, but that’s it. And yes, I agree it’s bad for them to write ballots so confusing that you need a law degree to figure out. Other people think so, too, because my husband and in laws always ask me the best way to vote.
I should have been more skeptical reading the ballot, because it said it ensures Missourians have the freedom of religion. That should have clued me in, because we got freedom of religion already.
My mom knew the bill had to do with puppy mills, because animal rights activists put ads on TV. She voted no because she thought it was saying “Should puppy mills be legal?” so she voted no, they should not be legal. It’s even harder for people like her, because she doesn’t know how to get on the Internet, send emails, read text messages, or anything requiring tech skills.
Honestly I think they write them that way to make it hard for you to understand because then you will be more likely to vote the way they want you to.
Of course in Arizona I know a lot of people who tend to vote straight up no on anything proposed by the state lege.
@Peartree:
EXACTLY.
Now I’m fortunate enough to live in a secular society, except for the idiot part about the royal family having to be protestants (I mean, I wish we didn’t have royals at all, but if we do have them they should have freedom of religion). But on the whole, I think Sweden is one of the most secular countries in the world.
However, I remember when Bush senior, during operation desert storm, claimed that God supported him. I wasn’t a member myself, but friends with many members, of a baptist church back then. Many of these members, including the reverend, had strong religiously motivated pacifist convictions. They were really disturbed when they heard Bush going on about God supporting war, it was like blasphemy to them. To an atheist, it’s just gonna be stupid.
I heard today that the wrong election date has been printed on the Spanish-translated voter registration forms in Maricopa County. I swear this shit would be rejected by the writers of Itchy and Scratchy for being too cartoonishly evil.
You’d think in a country where we hover around a fifty percent turnout for a presidential election, everyone would be all charged up to encourage voting. Instead the most urgent thing is to purge voter roles and foil fraudulent ballot-casters! Oh, and keep undesirables from getting to the polls in the first place. Seems like a fair amount of people in the U.S. still believe in the kind of democracy that was prevalent in colonial days (ie, white property holders were the only ones to get a ballot).
Well you know, have to get Sheriff Joe back in there (HI DEPUTIES, I HOPE YOU HAVE BEEN HAVING A GOOD DAY. THANKS FOR TRANSPORTING THIS WEEK) otherwise the world will COME TO AN END.
People’s views on a secular society thing is a puzzle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in sweater as far as I’m concerned. I live in a very conservative corner of the United States, and I’ve heard separation of church and state defined about nine different ways; most people like to boil the establishment clause of the First Amendment down to “religious freedom” so that they can use it as they see fit. Since I’m guaranteed “religious freedom,” that means that my religious views are protected, even if it means that I’m discriminating against someone else (for example, “I don’t want to rent to that gay person, because the Bible says it’s wrong. So I’m not gonna.”). Many, MANY Christian conservatives of my acquaintance also deeply believe that the U.S. was founded by Christian men, based on Christian principles – so they’re right, everyone different is wrong, and this is God’s own country. If you combine a belief that your right to do whatever your holy book says is protected, with a belief that your religion is the backbone of the nation you live in, stuff can get wacky.
With that in mind, I do feel a little sympathy for atheists who seem hyper sensitive to persecution. I can see where it would be tough to stick to your principles in certain environments. I’m non-religious myself, and it’s not fun to explain your shaky agnosticism to the lady who wants your kid to join her Christian karate camp. But do I think I’ve got it tougher than the homeless, the working poor, or pretty much any minority? Heck, no. Is the fact that some pharmacists feel it’s perfectly valid to decline to fill my birth control prescription because it conflicts with their personal beliefs more pressing to me than the fact that the other moms at playgroup might steer clear from my big, bad god-questioning self? Heck yeah.
Thanks for highlighting this. I admin a fb page for atheists and one of posters linked to UD and told everyone to up rate the MRA definition.
This basically confirms the poster is an MRA and his now on the admin radar.
Princessbonbon: Sheriff Joe scares the hell out of me, and I don’t even live in AZ.
In Australia what little prejudice there is isn’t such a big deal, however I was shocked to learn that in the US, voters would be more likely to vote for a Muslim or a gay or lesbian than an atheist[1]. That implies all kinds of horrible things about how atheists are regarded in the US, at least those who are out about their beliefs.
I guess in the world of atheist MRAs, if they can believe that men have it tougher than women, it might not be too hard to think that atheists have it tougher than anyone else. Kyriarchy is a dirty feminist idea anyway.
[1] 43% would not vote for an otherwise-qualified atheist from their preferred political party http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx
It is pretty much assumed by every politician in the county he has a file on on us. Which is why I said hi to the deputies.
Nerdypants – yeah, I think atheists here get a lot less hassle than in lots of places in the US. I suspect apathy is our state religion. It’s just wankers like Jim Wallace or Peter Jensen or the Mad Monk who have any hangups about us having an atheist as Prime Minister – and I suspect it’s her sex that really pisses them off.
If someone told me I was the last not-racist person living in Maricopa I would totally believe them, straight up.
He’s been running campaign ads highlighting his role in shutting down dog fighting rings.
Remember kids, he hates gays, brownies, and is totally okay with people sexually abusing you, but he LOVES your puppy!
/barf
Brilliant, David. Because the definition that criticises Atheism Plus has been upvoted more, it must have been MRA’s. Which is your shtick now: anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a raving sexist, misogynist MRA. If that’s the kind of narrative that interests you about Atheism Plus then maybe it’s not such a stretch to call it a fraud.
However, maybe you can tell me this: why is it that every proponent of the Atheism Plus movement only speak of feminism over other social justice issues? Why is it that rape victims are told they’d be better off dead when they confine with the community? Why is it that male rape victims are told to fuck off? Why is it that the description on the website says ‘apply scepticism to everyone and *everything*’ yet when you do, you’re accused of derailing, concern/tone trolling and being an MRA in disguise? Why is it that Matt Dillahunty got banned from the Atheism Plus forum for discovering a flaw in their moderation policy and subsequently told to apologise? Most importantly of all, what has anything of this to do with atheism?
Why is it that the forum have all these things in spades, but not a single post about atheism? Why is it that it has not a single post about gay rights? Why is it that it has not a single post about the struggles of the poor? Why is it that it has not a single post about the struggles of the homeless? (I trust you know what the fearless leader of the Atheism Plus brigade said of a homeless person. So much for caring about social justice issues. Funny you never mentioned that, I suppose it was embarassing, but then you only mock ‘misogyny.’)
Jennifer McCreight herself admitted she co-opted atheism to make it more politically viable. She herself admits she wanted to create a “safe space” for people to speak openly about these issues, but then why are most who do banned from the forum for aforementioned offenses? Perhaps, David, the person who wrote that about Atheism Plus has a point? And may I remind you that in your “trigger warning” it says your blog is “loosely moderated” – yeah, except for all those comments that were deleted (memoryholed) and/or not accepted through moderation. Loosely (or is that lousily?) moderated indeed.
I think that’s kind of a catch-22. Most people in my little neck of the woods are Christian, and I’d bet that most of them have never met. You get told in your church that having no belief is incompatible with goodness, so you assume all sorts of awful things about atheists. And since it’s a hassle, most nonbelievers aren’t “out.” So when the religious folks meet ethical, compassionate people, they just assume that the excellence comes from a personal relationship with Christ, when it may be conscious or reason or other deep personal convictions that are the real motivations. So no one ever meets a good atheist, therefore the idea of evil atheists can continue unsullied.
I think atheists need better PR; maybe these guys should put effort into running a food drive or funding a shelter instead of upvoting stuff on Urban Dictionary?
“never met *an atheist*” Damn, my proof reading gets worse every day.
That reminds me of a personal essay I heard an Army infantryman read on NPR a while back. He was involved in some pretty hairy raids during the early days in Afghanistan, and when he got home people pumped him for stories about his derring-do. He sit there nonplussed while they’d cheer the demise of other people in a foreign country. Then the soldier would mention something about having to shoot a couple of wild dogs who tried to attack him on the edge of the airfield. Suddenly he’d go from being the he-man hero of the hour to the creep who assassinates innocent animals. It makes sense that the inverse would work for good ol’ Sheriff Joe.
pitchguest, dude, who other than MRAs uses the term mangina?
[citation needed], but do go on being a super rational skeptical d00d.
You’re right, it doesn’t have a single post about atheism, it has a whole sub-forum full of posts about atheism
Yup, this post about helping a gay man avoiding being deported to Uganda doesn’t exist. For that matter, this post about homophobia and rape culture in the Marines and this post with a petition to remove the gay panic defense from law in Queensland, Australia don’t exist either.
Why is it that it has not a single post about the struggles of the poor? Why is it that it has not a single post about the struggles of the homeless?
Like this post about World Homeless Action Day and this post about an atheist group organizing giveaways to the homeless? There’s a search function, you know.
As a matter of fact I don’t, please share this sordid tale, I’m sure it will be just as accurate as your other statements.
Oh, forgot a blockquote on this bit:
Hmm. Pitchguest sure does seem to like addressing David by his first name…
Inurashi, you’re right, and they’ve got a giant bug up their ass about atheism, plus a whiff of “whhhhyyyyyy aren’t you addressing THIS.”
Yay! I stand corrected on my need for a food drive, atheists (ones on A +, no less) are doing good deeds in the public eye. The upvote dudes can go back to upvoting.