A tiny group of gallant men (and “their women”) go underground to fight the evil gynocratic overlords. Is this the plot of a terrible dystopian potboiler from 1971, or a description of how most MRAs see themselves, and the world, today?
Turns out it’s both. I found this pic in the Blue Pill subreddit, and now I really, really want to read this book.
Here’s a book review from someone who did.
@Ann
Uhm, I don’t believe in Gods/the supernatural, and I still don’t understand how this is supposed to be a slam dunk. “Higher power” is just that, a higher power. A higher power doesn’t mean someone/thing that makes sure that nothing that we don’t like happens. Now if you want to say that that means that there is no benevolent higher power, then sure you have somewhat of an argument, but so far I haven’t seen anything in your posts to support your arguments of “delusion”, and GrumpyOldMan did make claims of delusion, illogic and mindless following at all Christians (atleast that is how his post reads). Therefore, I for one have zero qualms about supporting katz’ position of “You just called me delusional with zero evidence and fuck you for that”.
Now, if your issue was with katz’ use of “asshole atheist”, that has long been a shorthand on this blog for the type of atheist that tries to convert theists to atheism against their wishes/ is racist or sexist or ablist etc./ or that mocks or belittles theists for their faith for no reason other than that they believe that it’s illogical and untrue, and was never meant by her to equate atheism with assholism. Now, obviously it seems like some atheists find it offensive and I have no problem with refraining from using it (I’m actually pretty sure I’ve never used it myself because I was never really fond of the phrase myself).
Yeah, I’d prefer smug atheist to New Atheist because there are way too many well established atheists, including some of the big names in the movement, that fall in the same category, and it seems unfair to foist this off onto the newly converted,
Unwieldy, but I’m now thinking Not As Bright As They’d Like To Think (remember that nonsense of calling themselves Brights that someone came up with a few years back?)
When I found out about the “brights” thing (I think it may have been on skepdic; I hadn’t found RationalWiki yet), it made me feel queasy in that “how smug can these guys be” kind of way.
Pretty much my reaction, Lee. The queasiness came from being stuck between scorn and amusement at their fuckwittery and the overwhelming SMUGMA of it all.
Oh, and the unbelievable tone-deafness they showed. You really thought calling yourselves Brights didn’t automatically mean you were calling anyone not-atheist dim, fellas? Really?
I don’t see the problem with the term “asshole atheist”. It doesn’t target all atheists because it only targets a certain subset of them. “Smug atheist” really isn’t much different, yet people seem to find that acceptable. It’s kind of like how one user here was complaining about the term TERF in that she thought it targeted all radfems – but I’m sure most people here understand that TERFs comprise only a subset of radfems.
kitteh: Indeed. Thankfully, the rest of skepdic didn’t really play into that mindset…there was (and is) some genuinely fascinating stuff about strange beliefs there.
Lee, that’s a relief! 🙂
Ally – that’s pretty much why I use Asshole Atheist™, to make it quite clear that it doesn’t mean “atheists are assholes”. It’s exactly the same as saying someone’s a Nice Guy™ – it distinguishes them from actual nice guys.
The TE in the word TERF does differentiate them from radfems. Both asshole and atheist and smug atheist imply that all atheists are smug/assholes to me. Now if either term was qualified by preceding it with something like “the subset of atheists who are …” or “the type of atheists who are…” it would be no problem with me.
The popular opinion of atheists is that we are all smug assholes. I’ve seen people call us all that so many times. That’s why both terms rub me the wrong way. They simply echo bigoted opinions about atheists. It would be the equivalent of me calling right wing fundamentalist Christians “irrational Christians.” That term would sound like I was calling them all irrational.
I know people here aren’t intending to insult all atheists with these terms, but it still rubs me the wrong way and can come off as unwelcoming to new or infrequent commenters who are unaware that the term is part of this blog’s culture and meant to refer to a specific type of atheist.
WWTH: I ask again, does using AssholeAtheist™ read the same way, to you?
Brights sounds like something an overly twee film would call superpowered children. Coming to the Disney Channel this Christmas.
Kittehs,
No, I agree that it’s an obvious brand like Nice Guy tm.
WWTH, thanks! That’s the only way I use it.
Ermagerd I love this – I’m just reading old blogs and stuff about the Brights, and guess who claims he is one? Dean Esmay!
::falls off chair laughing::
I have the same objection to smugmas’ use of the word “rational.”
Zolnier: I know, right? They’d be like Spy Kids except with, like, light-elemental powers or something.
I will withdraw smugma in favor of AssholeAtheist™ because I don’t want to insult the non-asshole atheists (who are legion).
AssholeAtheists are coated in a thick layer of smugma from their assfacts though. By their smugma shall ye know them.
So much this!
EEEWWWWWWWWWWW
So the other thing I’d like to mention is that religious beliefs, for me, are a rather personal thing. Talking about them is a bit like sharing the details of your romantic relationship(s), something I would not want to do in an environment where I thought I was just going to get slagged on.
So, for me, the conversation with Grumpy and Ann is a bit like this. Imagine that one of those MGTOWs comes in and says “Dating and marriage are useless and everyone in a relationship is either a leech or a sucker.”
And you say “I’m in a happy, loving relationship, so fuck you very much.”
But then someone else is like “Why are you being so rude? He’s just sharing his opinion. You didn’t even try to argue against it. You should instead tell us about your relationship so that we can discuss whether it’s good or not.”
And you’re like “Why would I tell that guy about my relationship? He’s just going to say that I’m a sucker.”
And the other person is like “You just hate single people!”
I’m still reading old stuff about the Brights, for my daily dose of schadenfreude.
Surprise surprise, Richard Dawkins got all “but people don’t take ‘gay’ to mean heteros are dull, colourless and boring! Why would they take ‘bright’ to mean theists are dim?” He then spouts umpteen dictionary definitions in a grand display of not getting it. Classic.
They’d be adorable alien moppets whose home planet died of pollution or something and are here to teach orphans the meaning of Christmas. Either that or they’d be those kids from A.N.T Farm who’re supposed to be geniuses despite being dumber than any child I’ve ever seen.
Little sister, the Disney Channel is unfourtunately on a lot in my house. Though when she’s watching that she’s not watching Dance Moms or Toddlers in Tiaras.
I think “Brights” sounds like the next generation of “indigo children.”
And indigo children sound like a garage band formed by Mystique’s kids.