Categories
Uncategorized

The Feminists: A story so frighteningly impossible, you won't believe it wasn't collectively written by the Men's Rights subreddit

Uh oh.
Uh oh

 

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

496 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
katz
7 years ago

Why shouldn’t I tell him to shut up when his opinion is that everyone who disagrees with him is just not as logical as he is? That is itself rude, dismissive, insulting bullshit and it doesn’t deserve airtime or a polite, patient response.

And if you don’t understand the rudeness…you must not have spent very much time here.

arubakeru
arubakeru
7 years ago

I actually spend too much time here. I like David and I enjoy reading the comments, most of the time.

Perhaps I didn’t make my point clear. Anyway, this isn’t taking us anywhere.

Phoenician in a time of Romans
Phoenician in a time of Romans
7 years ago

I really don’t get that particular short story. Bits with Susan dwelling on having to identify her siblings was great though.

Gaiman took exception to the way Lewis handled Susan in the stories, and by extension Lewis’s view on God and humanity. There’s a key line:

“It’s true, Greta thinks, irrationally, in the darkness. She grew up. She carried on. She didn’t die…”

Yeah – we grow up. People who want us to remain in “a child-like innocence” our entire lives, and who beat us over the heads with a God-shaped club if we don’t conform, are just trying to control us. We grow up. We ask questions. We accept responsibility. And, yes, we take pleasure in the carnal ways of the world.

Susan is us. Lewis’s ideal Christians, the other children, had to be killed off before they became adults lest they too follow her down into the depravity of maturity.

Fibinachi
7 years ago

“There are many possible explanations, and if I brought in ten Christians of different stripes, you’d get ten different ones.”

True enough. Christians are not allowed to follow their beliefs through to the logical conclusion that god cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, so they must find a way of evading the issue. But the issue is very simple. Either god intended us to have a sinful nature or it did not. If it did, it –not we — are responsible for it. If not, god failed to create us correctly. There is a theological problem called Theodicy, “the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil.” Essentially theodicy is an attempt to rationalize away this logical conflict.

Sorry, Katz, the idea that we were created by an omnipotent god who is justified in subjecting us to eternal torture because we are what it made us to be seems totally ludicrous to me. I think you can respect someone’s right to believe whatever he or she wants to without thinking that those beliefs make any sense.

Note the following:

“There are many possible explanations”
is answered with
“True enough. Christians are not allowed…”

Note that the notion of omnipotent god who is justified in torturing us for all eternity is assumed the standard religious experience and argument of all Christians.

Note further that the intention was to talk about one specific branch of Christianity, but that’s not what actually happened.

Grumpyoldman, we don’t appreciate asshole atheists around here, kthx.

And since that’s not that what actually happened, that’s kind of an asshole thing. Someone directly stating that Christians are not allowed to follow their beliefs through to the logical conclusion and must as such “evade the issue” is, ipso facto, kind of an asshole thing to say.

That’s not what someone really wanted to say, I think, but that’s what was said. SO:

I should say that I am not an atheist.
I definitely should have been more careful to state that I was specifically talking about the part of Christianity that is based on Calvinistic ideas of predestination and total depravity. Many denominations and even many Christians who belong to Calvinistic denominations do not share this sort of belief that god is going to fry anyone who doesn’t agree with them to a crisp. But I do have a very serious problem with religions that encourage and manipulate hatred. I will give as an example the Russian Orthodox Church’s recent role in promoting anti-gay hatred in Russia.

I have no problem at all with anyone’s beliefs per se. What I object to is religions that promote hatred (in this case by promoting the belief that some other people who don’t conform to their views deserve to be tortured for eternity), and religions that make unholy alliances with repressive governments in order to gain temporal power.
I don’t care what anyone believes — it’s none of my business. I do care how people treat their fellow humans, and some religions have a poor record in that respect.

Notice this particular change is much more clear in the intention stance of talking about a specific branch of a specific metaphysical belief. This is not an asshole thing to say, it’s a statement of opinion on metaphysics. Are we clear on the difference? “Christians are not…” versus “This specific branch of Christianity holds it as a belief that…”.

Unfortunately, the second paragraph trips all that up and boils it back down to “religions promote hatred”. That’s an accident, I think, and I don’t think grumpyoldman really wnted that to be the case, but it happened, so here we are.

Grumpyoldman, you’ve already made it clear that you are convinced you know everything about this topic and that anyone who disagrees with you is just being intellectually dishonest, which would make it pointless to try to hold a conversation with you even if you weren’t wildly moving the goalposts. Therefore I invite you to shut your pie hole.

So, in the end, Christians are a illogical because they refuse to follow their beliefs to the ultimate conclusion and this results in them evading issues and not being rational. The latter is implied in evading issues. This does mean that having a discussion is pointless, because one side thinks the other is illogical, wrong and possessing of their beliefs from intellectual dishonesty.

Unnecessary and unkind. I don’t know what about GOM’s posts have upset you but you seem to have decided for yourself that since you disagree with them, they have no value to anyone. I’m enjoying them and agree with most of what he’s said.

If you don’t agree with his comments, either argue back or skip over them.

Oh yeah, I’m an asshole atheist raised Catholic for real. So give it your best shot since ‘my kind’ are so unwelcome around here.

Lovely to see such openmindedness towards those of a different attitude to faith/God. Not.

What upsets people about the initial statement is the implied assumption that all Christians are illogical people on the run from the real world who evade issues of their faith by not thinking about them. Sort of an asshole thing to say.

There’s no reason to “argue back”, because there’s nothing to argue against. The stated discussion point is: “You are illogical and wrong, and you have not thought the conclusions of your faith through till the end, so you must not be very smart, or you must be avoiding and evading this fact of your own metaphysical construction”.

That’s not a discussion point, Ann, that’s an insult. I can say nothing to that because anything I say will is automatically countered by the notion that I am illogical non-thinker who is unable to properly examine the tenets of the faith I expouse to follow.

The argument against theodicy being the destructive seed of all religious thought because god is neither this or that good as an actual argument. There’s been some discussion of the topic for, oh, 2000 years or so? 3000? It’s kind of a brain puzzler.

My personal preference is the idea that gods, if we assume they exist, created us with free will, and that would also imply the capacities to do evil, since if there’s no choice it’s not free, so ultimately evil is a product of human machination and god is technically blameless.

But then what do I know, I don’t jump into discussions about religion with the basic thought that I’m unwelcome and an asshole and wrong. Everyone kind of just miscommunicated here.

And I don’t think Katz was very rude. I’m puzzled by the response, and puzzled enough that I took the time to write this out, so sorry if that gets on anyones nerves.

(I’m an atheist, by the way)

Ally S
7 years ago

I’m with katz here. This isn’t the first time that she’s had to deal with smug atheists. So it’s no surprise that she would be upset at someone saying that she is illogical for having certain religious beliefs. Although GrumpyOldMan had a polite tone, he certainly wasn’t saying anything nice.

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

RE: katz

Among sapient fruit it is, of course, considered the ultimate abomination to put the lime in the coconut.

BLASPHEMER!

In the third one, among other things, C.S. Lewis decided to write a lesbian. It didn’t go well.

…D:

RE: Zolnier

I think there’s at least one story out there about a Martian Jesus, will have to look it up.

There MUST be. I refuse to believe with all the Christian fantasy books around that nobody came up with the idea of a Space Jesus.

Anti-theist?

Nah, I’m an anti-theist, in that if I ever had to accept that gods existed and were involved with my life, I would be FURIOUS with them and probably wish their destruction. Thus far, I think I’ve managed not to be an asscake. (Or would that make me an anti-deist? I forget what the actual term is, so maybe I’ve totally got it all wrong!)

arubakeru
arubakeru
7 years ago

I misunderstood at first why Katz was being rude (yeah, reading comprehension fail). Then I got it and agreed with her on that aspect. I suppose I just dislike her handling of things because I like to discuss things in a different way, even if someone says something -unintentionally I think- offensive. But I won’t impose my way of doing things again, even if it upsets me, so sorry about that.

katz
7 years ago

Thanks, Fibinachi, always there with a well-reasoned and well-phrased explanation.

And I do want to apologize for sounding like I wanted all atheists to shut up, because that is not what I want at all. I would like this to be a place where everyone feels comfortable, regardless of their religious views or lack thereof, and, ideally, where everyone would feel comfortable talking about their religious views or lack thereof if they so choose.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Maybe smug atheist would work as a descriptive term? Because I’m right with Dawkins et al on the atheism and but still find the smugness annoying. Hopefully “smug” would make it clear that what’s being referenced is those who openly sneer at religious people as stupid/deluded/whatever. I’m also not fond of seeing anyone reference their religious beliefs or their atheism as a proof of moral or ethical superiority because a. it’s not hard to find examples of people with no apparent ethics at all on either side of the religion debate and b. it feels like a lazy way to try to win an argument.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Of course a simpler and clearer way to handle this might be for people to just call out the specific thing that they’re objecting to when religion is being criticized, for example in this case the implication that religious people are willfully delusional, which caused offense because hey, most people don’t like being called delusional liars. Ditto when people are complaining about sexism in atheist spaces and so on.

cloudiah
7 years ago

Smugtheists! Although then people might think we’re talking about smug theists.

On second thought, I have about as much fondness for smug theists as I do for smug atheists so maybe it still works.

We could also call them smugma.

I’ll show myself out.

Ann Somerville
7 years ago

” I don’t jump into discussions about religion with the basic thought that I’m unwelcome and an asshole and wrong. ”

Thanks for that. I thought I had read all the comments by Grumpy and Katz, including Katz’s slam against atheists, and tried to work out what was making her so angry, but *obviously* I was just trying to be offended.

I believe all religions are based on delusion, because they involve acceptance of a higher purpose/power which I simply cannot believe in. (This is what being an atheist means.) That doesn’t mean that religion is ipso facto bad, wrong, or evil, or unique in its basis in delusion. After all, we all get up in the morning with the delusion that there is some good reason to keep going and staying alive, when the world and the universe will be not be altered in any significant way if we don’t.

All that matters is how we let the delusions change how we operate. But if your argument is “there is no delusion”, that’s nonsensical. I spent the weekend at a resort and met a family where the father is dying from a brain tumour, while his wife and daughter watch. If there’s a higher power who thinks that forcing a ten year old girl endure the slow painful death of her beloved dad, then I’m an amoeba.

I really don’t care who’s right and who’s wrong in this. I don’t get up in the morning planning to crush the hopes and dreams of everyone who believes in a deity. What made me angry was Katz’s deciding for everyone else that Grumpy’s statements had no value and he had to shut up. That’s not a tone argument, it’s an objection to silencing.

Obviously most of you seem to be cool with that and I’m in a minority of one. I just don’t care about the theoretical issue enough to continue arguing about it, and I am too angry with the shit being slung for me not being a person of faith or not agreeing with Katz’s position to care if you care if I don’t. Once the discussion gets personal and laden with hate, I don’t want to hang around.

Ally S
7 years ago

Calling someone deluded for being religious and merely not agreeing with someone’s religious worldview are two very different things.

Robert
Robert
7 years ago

If you argue, in seriousness, that theodicy is something that Christians (as a group) avoid because Reasons, it will be hard for me to take you entirely seriously.

If you argue that some Christian apologetics on the topic of theodicy are intellectually questionable, that I can respect.

Also, regarding Martian Jesus, there’s Stranger in a Strange Land. But I think Case of Conscience is a better treatment.

I’ve read Lewis’s Space Trilogy. Best thing I can say for it is that it led me to Olaf Stapleton.

Fibinachi
7 years ago

TL:DR – Just check Ally S. one sentence comment.

” I don’t jump into discussions about religion with the basic thought that I’m unwelcome and an asshole and wrong. ”

Thanks for that. I thought I had read all the comments by Grumpy and Katz, including Katz’s slam against atheists, and tried to work out what was making her so angry, but *obviously* I was just trying to be offended.

Look, we’re already going to have problems when it starts of like this. I don’t go into conversations with the mindset that I’m unwelcome, an asshole and wrong.

You can take that two ways.

You can assume I think that you think that we think that you are you are an asshole, unwelcome and wrong when entering this discussion because someone said something about religion.

That’ kind of a lot of chains of intentionality.

Or you can assume it means entering into a discussion where you are automatically the persecuted party who is an asshole, unwelcome and wrong is an odd thing to do, since it, like Grumpy’s statement, means you’ve already decided the opinion of your elected opposition.

For the record, I don’t want to offend you. I don’t think you are an asshole. I don’t think you’re unwelcome. I don’t think youre Wrong, somehow.

I think entering into a conversation where that’s taken as blase fact, and then literally daring someone else to bring their worst is kind of an odd thing to do.

If you don’t agree with his comments, either argue back or skip over them.

Oh yeah, I’m an asshole atheist raised Catholic for real. So give it your best shot since ‘my kind’ are so unwelcome around here.

I find that an odd thing to do. Because you’re not unwelcome for being who you are. But if you are specifically, as you say, an asshole atheist, then you are in fact not welcome. Because assholes are not welcome. And I shall now change my nomenclature to something else, and instead say smugtheist. If you are insufferably smug about your superiority you are not welcome. Are we clear now, Ann?

believe all religions are based on delusion, because they involve acceptance of a higher purpose/power which I simply cannot believe in. (This is what being an atheist means.) That doesn’t mean that religion is ipso facto bad, wrong, or evil, or unique in its basis in delusion. After all, we all get up in the morning with the delusion that there is some good reason to keep going and staying alive, when the world and the universe will be not be altered in any significant way if we don’t.

Because I don’t think we’re clear. I think we are all mis-communicating. For instance, I know what atheist means. I am one.

But thank you for the elaboration nonetheless. The problem all is that what was argued against (and as I feel like I have summed up?) is the assumption, a priori, that anyone arguing for a set piece of thought is delusional and wrong and just no good at Thinking Right, as opposed to the Right Thinkers who have Found The Truth.

That’s an asshole thing to do. Katz pointed that out. That’s the long and short of it.

All that matters is how we let the delusions change how we operate. But if your argument is “there is no delusion”, that’s nonsensical. I spent the weekend at a resort and met a family where the father is dying from a brain tumour, while his wife and daughter watch. If there’s a higher power who thinks that forcing a ten year old girl endure the slow painful death of her beloved dad, then I’m an amoeba.

I really don’t care who’s right and who’s wrong in this. I don’t get up in the morning planning to crush the hopes and dreams of everyone who believes in a deity. What made me angry was Katz’s deciding for everyone else that Grumpy’s statements had no value and he had to shut up. That’s not a tone argument, it’s an objection to silencing.

Obviously most of you seem to be cool with that and I’m in a minority of one. I just don’t care about the theoretical issue enough to continue arguing about it, and I am too angry with the shit being slung for me not being a person of faith or not agreeing with Katz’s position to care if you care if I don’t. Once the discussion gets personal and laden with hate, I don’t want to hang around.

That is good for you. I hope you are happy with your decisions. I hope you live a long, good, interesting and wonderful life. I agree, brain tumors suck. I like that you are not trying to crush hopes and dreams. That hints at empathy and caring and a perspective broad enough to want to be nice to other people. Seriously awesome.

May I humbly suggest that perhaps, despite all this, it doesn’t matter. We have a different situation here, in that, apparently, we are slinging shit at you. Which I have no intention of doing. Did not want to do. And will not continue to do, if I was somehow doing it and being unaware of this fact.

If you write, on this forum, that all christians believe X, that is an asshole thing to do, because many Christians will disagree. Just as claiming that all feminists are golddiggers will cause many femininsts to disagree. Generalizations has that power.

If you, on this forum, write that a certain branch of Christianity has it as a tenet that THIS IDEA HERE is a core of their faith, and that the implications of this is fucking terrifying and so atrociously wrong as to beggar belief, that is not an asshole thing to do, because you are speaking in specifics and you can reference what you are talking about. An

Saying Calvinistic Pre-determination chills you to the core (Calvinistic Predetermination chills me to the fucking core) is not bad. It’s just an opinion. Saying that all christians are mind controlled mobs who believe in some delusional higher power and the world is bereft of meaning and good reasons to keep going is a delusion because physically limited beings earthbound as we are have no capacity to influence things on a universal scale which is the only true measure of meaning somehow is, uhm, well, erh, eerh…I…

sort of heavy, really. Are you okay? Do you want to talk about it? ‘Cause that seems kind of… sad, is all.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

I believe all religions are based on delusion, because they involve acceptance of a higher purpose/power which I simply cannot believe in.

One could say the same of any idea one doesn’t believe in. Look at all the MRAs who like to think feminism is based on delusions. Seconding Ally here: calling someone deluded because you don’t share their beliefs is heading straight into asshat territory. To me, your wording sounds like the sort of “anyone with any non-atheist beliefs is delusional” notion, which is very asshattish indeed. It always reads as pretty ablelist to me, too, implying that the vast majority of people in the world have some sort of mental illness.

This all started with talking about predestination, a particular belief, not a general Christian one, and (inadvertently, I think) caused splash damage. I’m sorry that happened, partly because of the obvious reasons, partly because the original conversation was interesting (not often I get to snark at Calvin here).

WWTH, have people taken to writing “asshole atheist” without distinction? That’s a crappy or maybe lazy way to do it. I use Asshole Atheist (TM) the, idea being the same as using Nice Guy (TM) – does that way of writing it rub you the wrong way, too? If so I’ll drop it. No way do I want to conflate atheism with assholishness.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

OMG the blockquote mammoth attacked Fibi! Bon-bons and scented fucking candles, stat!

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

We could also call them smugma.

I’ll show myself out.

That gave me a Red Dwarf moment and I’ve only seen about two episodes! 😀

Fibinachi
7 years ago

OMG the blockquote mammoth attacked Fibi! Bon-bons and scented fucking candles, stat!

Just make… it apple-scented candles.

[Faint pained noises]

No! NO THAT CHAIR IS TOO HARD. I can’t rest here. My buttocks cries out with the pain of oppression.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

Cushions! Cushions for Fibi!

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

@ cloudiah

Yeah, I have about as much fondness for smug theists as I do for their atheist counterparts, so I don’t see why they shouldn’t be included in the “you’re being a pita, knock it off” category.

@ Ann

Can you not see how “you’re delusional” is a hostile statement unlikely to lead to productive discussion? It really is possible to be an atheist without being that snotty to religious people.

katz
7 years ago

Ooh, I like smugma. I shall say it always in a Lister voice.

Can someone point out my slam against atheists? My delusions may be preventing me from seeing it.

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

I just dislike the term asshole atheist because it doesn’t make clear that it’s a specific type. When you say fundamentalist Christian or religious right anyone can tell it’s a specific subset of Christian

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

Asshole atheist just sounds like you think all atheists are assholes. Even New Atheist probably works because they’re usually the ones who act smug and pushy.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

WWTH – don’t know if you saw my comment upthread, but does AssholeAtheist(TM) come across like it means all atheists, to you?

Smugma or smugism or smugists work really well. It’s about the attitude, not the specific belief (or lack of).

Shadow
Shadow
7 years ago

@Ann

But if your argument is “there is no delusion”, that’s nonsensical. I spent the weekend at a resort and met a family where the father is dying from a brain tumour, while his wife and daughter watch. If there’s a higher power who thinks that forcing a ten year old girl endure the slow painful death of her beloved dad, then I’m an amoeba.

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).

Shadow
Shadow
7 years ago

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,

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

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?)

Lee
Lee
7 years ago

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.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

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.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

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?

Ally S
7 years ago

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.

Lee
Lee
7 years ago

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.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

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.

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

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.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

WWTH: I ask again, does using AssholeAtheist™ read the same way, to you?

Zolnier
Zolnier
7 years ago

Brights sounds like something an overly twee film would call superpowered children. Coming to the Disney Channel this Christmas.

weirwoodtreehugger
7 years ago

Kittehs,

No, I agree that it’s an obvious brand like Nice Guy tm.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

WWTH, thanks! That’s the only way I use it.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

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::

katz
7 years ago

You really thought calling yourselves Brights didn’t automatically mean you were calling anyone not-atheist dim, fellas? Really?

I have the same objection to smugmas’ use of the word “rational.”

Lee
Lee
7 years ago

Zolnier: I know, right? They’d be like Spy Kids except with, like, light-elemental powers or something.

cloudiah
7 years ago

I will withdraw smugma in favor of AssholeAtheist™ because I don’t want to insult the non-asshole atheists (who are legion).

pallygirl
pallygirl
7 years ago

AssholeAtheists are coated in a thick layer of smugma from their assfacts though. By their smugma shall ye know them.

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

not-atheist dim, fellas? Really?

I have the same objection to smugmas’ use of the word “rational.”

So much this!

AssholeAtheists are coated in a thick layer of smugma from their assfacts though. By their smugma shall ye know them.

EEEWWWWWWWWWWW

katz
7 years ago

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!”

kittehserf MOD
kittehserf MOD
7 years ago

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.

Zolnier
Zolnier
7 years ago

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.

katz
7 years ago

I think “Brights” sounds like the next generation of “indigo children.”

Zolnier
Zolnier
7 years ago

And indigo children sound like a garage band formed by Mystique’s kids.