So an angry dude wandered into the S**t Reddit Says subreddit recently — one of the few feminist-friendly, largely manbaby-free hideouts on Reddit — and left a pretty amazing rant, attacking the SRSers as, well, see for yourself.
I’m not even going to bother fisking this one. I think it’s probably best experienced in its original wall-of-text form.
In case that image is hard to read, here’s the text:
You’re the most f**ked up group of people currently alive (self.S**tRedditSays)
submitted 1 day ago by LewisExMachina
I’m sure you’re gonna devour this account too, but whatever. I’ve resigned myself to the fact that every time I call you out my account gets spammed and your cronies try to doxx me, but I can’t let you keep doing what you’re doing. The harassment you put people through on a daily basis is way worse than anything /fatpeoplehate was ever accused of. Who knows how many men you’ve driven to suicide just because they have something between their legs. But you don’t fucking care, because they made a rape joke and that makes them worse than Nazis. I guess rape is worse than murder now. And since men can’t be raped any man who says he was raped has to deal with it while a female who says she was raped is instantly believed and rewarded for her bravery. And you think women have it worse? Fuck off, women are treated like little princesses while men are treated like shit. Maybe you have a point with the catcalling thing, but everything else you say is bullshit and based on lies meant to devalue men and increase the value of women. Soon you’ll force the government to add the ability to make more money (27% more) by just checking off a “I’m a woman” box on a job sheet. Us men will just say that we’re transwomen (since that’s also something you support) and get that money too, so you’ll be back to square 1 where men and women make the same salaries. If you want to make the same money then don’t take maternity leave, dipshits.
And what’s with all the hate on video games? You don’t even like video games, and we do. Why is that a problem. If something makes a group of people happy and it doesn’t inherently hurt anyone else then why is that such a bad thing? Women don’t want to play video games, they just want to police the development of video games and its community. !??!?!? Seriously just fuck off. Go fight for unisex bathrooms or showing your tits or something I can get behind rather than video games that you don’t even play. All of the girlfriends I had wanted nothing to do with video games and that was okay. How would you feel if we started policing makeup, saying that makeup led to violence and should be banned? You’d hate it, because it’s a stupid baseless accusation meant only to hurt one gender. Which is exactly what the attack on video games is.
I don’t know what to say here other then you probably all need to get laid, then you’ll calm down.
Indeed, a thing of beauty.
“…Should experts in chemicals and public health regulate makeup, I say yes! And so does the Environmental Working Group. The government won’t do a reasonable job with this, so the EWG’s Skindeep cosmetics database is there to help us:
http://www.ewg.org/skindeep//…”
@Kat
While I think there are many ways the government is falling down on the job of ensuring safety in cosmetics, cosmetic chemists with significant formulating experience in addition to extensive academic knowledge behind their multiple university, grad. and PhD degrees are working with trusted (rather than potentially contaminated) raw material suppliers making various cosmetic and skincare products for their corporate employers. They struggle with the fact that there are many sources of info available which leave out minute but critical data, are simply flat out wrong, or likely to be mistaken for a similarly named ingredient/risk factors by the media and the general public – neither of which tend to have the prerequisite scientific background to accurately interpret the entirety of the info. Cosmetic chemists also deal with trying to formulate a consumer safe product for their employer and having it meet the same performance/appearance requirements as before while using none of the preservatives and only all natural ingredients. Even when they succeed, consumers may not be entirely impressed with the “in field” performance so the product hits the clearance bins before being pulled entirely.
The current budgetary tug-of-war in the U.S. at all levels of government is putting us in a position of being understaffed for the work of proper oversight. If a government agency is struggling to find the full funds for their routine operational necessities they won’t have the manpower or be able to hire some for sending out to complete inspections before a serious problem has been reported and then it’s about preventing additional harm through ‘mopping up’ the mess/damage that’s already happened. A lot of people get mad over the loss of manufacturing jobs going overseas but refuses to buy more expensive products made here; they complain about pollution and damage to the environment, yet they want to have all those products delivered to them whose production methods are the cause of the pollution and damage to the environment! Unless we are willing to quit complaining that we have to pay for those additional employees that we bitch about not having available when it comes time to perform various tasks for our benefit when we don’t pay for them – and give up the idea of never paying taxes again with government benefits paying in full for our golden years – not much we can do about getting better government oversight in cosmetics.
Hahaha… you don’t think plenty of us are fellow gamers?
“All of the girlfriends I had wanted nothing to do with video games and that was okay.”
So where’s that supposed famously superior make logic that should be stopping you in your tracks and causing you to say, “Hey, maybe that actually says a lot more about the kind of girls I go for than it does about women in general.”
Why is it that some men are determined that all the fun stuff should belong to them and them alone.
Makeup? Go ahead. I hate the stuff. Maybe I’d get to feel more like it’s acceptable to go without.
Okay, so one of my interests is European history, I am studying it under a professor specializing in Church history, and am presently taking a break from writing an essay about St. Daniel the Styilite. I am quite confident that this is incorrect. I do not agree that religion is universally negative, but historically it was massively influential to an extent that is hard to imagine from modern perspectives. It can be hard to tell whether or not a given religious policy is for purely theological reasons or economic and political reasons or both, but it’s quite clear that the vast majority of religious people cared about their religion separate from other issues. Today, you won’t see an Emperor petition an ascetic to support him against an Archbishop and you won’t see the ascetic force the Emperor to yield, but religions still matter to the people who follow them.
@msexceptiontotherule
I agree that it’s a complex issue.
I’d rather pay a little extra for skin care products and such and know that the product is safe.
I should also point out that yes, there’s a lot of places where religion is still quite strong, just not so obviously distinguishable from secular factors.
@dhag
I haven’t even seen Zam yet. So far I’ve wasted 30 rounds on 30 Abras (I’m not joking; possible glitch? Then again, I caught both Diancie and Mew on the first try, so maybe the RNG’s just fucked in general. I dunno, I only started playing it last week).
Erg, tired and not communicating well. To clarify, when I say modern I am including Islamic countries; it’s still very influential but in most countries not quite so much as it used to be. The jizya is largely abolished, for instance.
@in general
Comparing “Continuing to ally yourself with one particular sect lead by one particular person, no matter how much of a misogynist or racist or paedophilia apologist (!!!) he is, is legitimising his continued douchebaggery, and trying to save said sect at this point in time, while ostensibly noble, is like trying to save the Titanic by hauling it back up from the bottom of the bloody ocean” with systemic Islamophobia is fucking gross in a dozen different ways. Don’t do it.
Holy fuck, that was one long-ass sentence.
In defense of public atheism,
Let us assume that the existence of religion has not made the world better or worse overall and that world without religion would be almost the same at this one. Let us assume that converting large numbers of people to atheism is probably impossible, and if it were possible, would not increase social welfare. In this case there would be no reason for atheism to have a recruiting movement. LGBT people don’t have a recruiting movement for the same reasons: turning people gay is mostly impossible, and if it could be done there would be no reason to. Homosexual folk have a support movement and Atheists in America need a support movement for some of the same reasons.
Queer people in America have faced legal discrimination and appalling violence and atheism on a level that dwarfs anything against atheists, but even if we could outlaw all forms or discrimination, enforce that law perfectly, and prevent all violence, we would still need a public LGBT social movement, because
–Queer people were probably born that way, but even if they weren’t it’s an important and mostly unchangeable part of who they are
–Queer people are often born into cis and het families
–Queer people sometimes grow up not knowing they are queer, or that other queer people exist
–Queer people are often told, even by their families, that they are immoral
–Queer people often, though not always, prefer to date and marry queer people
Thus, parades and support groups and celebrities “coming out.” Now consider atheism
–Atheist people may have been born that way, but for those who weren’t it still a mostly unchangeable and sometimes important part of who they are
–Atheists are often born into religious families
–Athesists sometimes grow up not knowing they are atheists or that other atheists exist
–Atheists are often told, even by their own families, that they are immoral
–Atheists often, though not always prefer to date and marry other atheists.
So, yeah. We’re here! We’re atheists! Get used to it!
Uh, Richard Dawkins is not the leader of a “sect” of atheism. He’s not the leader of anything. He is a New Atheist, but if you had to call one man the “leader” of New Atheism, it would be Sam Harris*. Richard Dawkins wrote like 1.5 books about atheism and donated some money. Sam Harris wrote 4 or 5, including the one credited with starting “New Atheism,” then started and ran his own atheist organization. Also, he’s American.
New Atheism is not synonymous with movement atheism anyway. If you don’t know anything about atheism, maybe you shouldn’t opine on it.
*Sam Harris is a terrible person.
@SFHC
Yeah, I meant I haven’t seen it either. I think I have a pretty good shot at catching it when I do see it, since I’m using Mega Gengar at max level and maxed out mega speedups, Giratina at max level, and Darkrai at level 6, and I have enough coins for 3 great balls. Should be enough.
I’ve read that the chance of encountering Alakazam is 2%. I’ve definitely done more than 50 tries, so I’m already in the bad luck zone. Doing 4 more tries right now before I head off to work. :p
@Orion
Oh, come on. I “know” plenty “about atheism”, and I’d say Dawkins is much more well known than Harris. I’d also say The God Delusion is about 100 times more well known than any of Harris’ books. And wtf does being American have to do with anything.
I also seem to remember Dawkins being on all kinds of TV shows talking about atheism, so let’s not pretend he just wrote a book and never mentioned it again. Jebus.
@dhag
At this point I think Orion cares more about declaring me wrong because reasons than anything else. Him and I do NOT get along. =P
Just googled:
richard dawkins atheism – 1 360 000 hits
sam harris atheism – 766 000 hits
“the god delusion” dawkins – 443 000 hits (much lower than I expected, tbh)
“the end of faith” harris – 332 000 hits
Historically, Harris, Dennett and the late great Strenger were the first “New Atheists” to become big, but at this point it’s fair to say that inasmuch as any one person is the public face of New Atheism, it’s Dawkins.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the last 24 hours, and I’ve come to the position that there were always three factors of thought in movement atheism:
1. Religion should be opposed because it contradicts science.
2. Religion should be opposed because it advances harmful social policies.
3. Religion should be opposed because it is currently weak and picking on the weak is fun.
Once one separates it out like this, it becomes much clearer who’s on which side. Personally I don’t care whether or not anyone contradicts science but I do care about social harm. However, most of the Dawkins fanboys I meet are more motivated by factors 1 and 3, and will only care about social harm inasmuch as the victims can be used as a stick to beat religious people with.
If I stay, I continue being a fig leaf for the assholes. If I go, I weaken the platform to oppose things like this or this on systemic grounds.
I’m looking into humanism. Are there any humanists here who’d like to weigh in? This is something of a crisis of conscience for me, and I’d be grateful for any guidance that anyone has to give.
EJ: There’s always Atheism+ movement, head over to check out Skepchick’s site, for example.
Is A+ still a thing? I haven’t heard much from them in the past year or more.
(I’m a big fan of Rebecca Watson, and do love Skepchick. Always nice to see another person who follows it.)
@EJ
These days the only way in which I “promote” atheism is by saying I’m an atheist if someone asks. Or I say I don’t believe in god. When I work with people from majority muslim countries they sometimes ask if I’m a christian, and I say no. Then they ask if I’m a muslim, and I say no. Then they usually think for a while, then ask if I’m a catholic, and I say no. Then they ask “so what ARE you?” – and I say I’m not religious, I don’t believe in any god. They usually go “huh”, and that’s the end of that. Never any outrage or offense taken. I think that kind of normalization does some good, at least.
@EJ
I identify as a secular humanist. I read into the beliefs and felt they match my own very well. I’m not active or anything, though, so I’m not sure what help I can be in your crisis. I don’t go around talking about religion a lot, but my officiant outed me at my wedding (that was planned), though I don’t know if anyone knew what it meant.
I certainly don’t feel as uncomfortable telling people I’m a secular humanist as I have telling people I was an athiest. Because I don’t want people to think of the assholes like Dawkins, Harris, or even Mehta, who seems like a great guy on the surface but then comes out of left field with some sexist bullshit or starts mocking and bullying people for their beliefs.
@Orion
What the actual fuck? I don’t know most of that shit but I’m an athiest. Am I not allowed to post about athiesm, either? I didn’t know we had sacred texts that must be memorized before one can speak about us.
I’m also weirded out by Orion’s suggestion that certain people shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions on atheism.
And very unsurprised to hear the all too common rant about how “we have no sacred texts and no leaders, except for the texts and leaders picked by me personally”. Yaaawn.
It just occurred to me that Orion thinks I’m a Christian (or a Muslim?). Not that it matters, but for accuracy’s sake, I’m actually nonreligious myself.
@Imaginary Petal:
I’m not interested in spreading atheism or promoting it or anything. It’s my belief that human spirituality or lack thereof is a personal issue, and if freed from coercion each person will find or invent the sect that’s right for them if they want one. Normalisation of atheism is part of that, but disassembling power structures is probably a more important part.
@kupo:
Thanks for that, that’s very helpful. Activism is something which I think I would need, and I’m uncomfortable with some of the humanist activism I’ve seen, but it’s good to know that there’s a real sense of community there.
regarding new atheism and the need for an atheist movement:
many religious people argue that atheism is in itself a religion which is just wishful thinking but new atheist movement is to some extent religious, mainly because it’s mixing scientism and atheism and promoting a cult of personality.
that said, new atheist movement has some good point like considering religious thinking and faith dangerous and harmful but their definition is too narrow and mainly focuses on abrahamic religions and not unconventional form of religious thinking like nazism or communism.
believing in things that have no scientific or logical ground results in harm both to the believer and other people:
http://nypost.com/2016/01/18/muslim-teen-cuts-off-own-hand-as-blasphemy-penance/
what other form of thinking could result in such disaster?!
religion also make it far easier for those who lust for power or profit to manipulate people.
and as steven weinberg said:
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”
so i believe religion and religious thinking are enemy of mankind, but eradicating a form a religion won’t change human condition deeply,
it should be countered when possible in every form and under any name.
also i think eradication of religion (in all forms) is one of the best things that can happen to humankind, i don’t consider it possible but there should be a force to promote irreligion and atheism and to keep religion in its place(which is spiritual domain, if it ever existed)
Religion will never end or be eradicated, unless we can somehow make all people be perfectly rational at all times, as well as always interpreting all facts of reality entirely correctly. Which we can’t. So let’s move on to something more productive.
Related: if you go to Dawkins’ website, you’ll be subjected to one of his catch phrases regarding religion – “together we can find the cure”. What an idiot.
Maybe I shouldn’t have shut up about D&D….