Atheists Need Safe Zones

What do you do when you want to mock, ridicule, and just plain ol’ hate on religious people without having anyone frown on your anti-religious bigotry?  What do you do when you insist on being viewed as the smartest person in the room, yet your atheism is built on god-of-the-gaps reasoning supplemented by teletubbie logic?

Answer: You create safe zones!    Does it really surprise anyone that atheist activists insist on safe zones?  Maybe when Richard Carrier wins his legal battles against his fellow atheists, he can turn his attention to becoming a Secular Safe Zone Facilitator.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, atheist activism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Atheists Need Safe Zones

  1. Dhay says:

    Answer: You set up a blog called “WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE” — yes, the title’s in all block capitals — where you pontificate endlessly about freedom of speech and how argument and debate and dissent are important and good, yet perma-ban any commenter who disagrees with you; you set up an echo-chamber for your own views, a safe space into which no dissent intrudes.

  2. R.E says:

    It must be awful for atheists to say mean things. I hope the families get huge compensation pay outs and the buildings damaged get restored in a fast manner.

  3. Kevin says:

    You do realize that it is the atheists wanting the safe spaces, correct? Or is this the type of reasoning we might expect from someone who wants religion erased because of things that have nothing to do with reason?

  4. TFBW says:

    I think that may have been sarcasm. Bear in mind that there are two factions of atheist at war here: the social justice warriors that want safe spaces, and the broadly anti-religious ones who resent the former’s tendency to go soft on Islam and label the latter as “Islamophobic”. The latter have no need for “safe spaces” — they see that as a tool of the weak.

  5. Kevin says:

    It’s exactly (or close to exactly) what he wrote in his last blog entry, which is Religion Erased. And though I did admittedly skim the blog post and may have missed intent, I do believe it was directed at theists.

  6. TFBW says:

    Actually, Kevin, I think you’re right. I made the mistake of assuming that the comment was somehow relevant to the subject under discussion. I withdraw my charitable interpretation. It’s fairly clear that R.E. just wants to engage in random acts of religion-bashing with little or no regard to the actual subject being discussed.

  7. Don’t even get me started up on this nauseating snowflake SJW safe space bull****.

    Southpark to the rescue:

    Bloomberg had a few choice words on this subject:

    Alan Dershowitz has had enough of this noise:

    Want a safe space where you don’t here apposing views? STFH:

  8. stcordova says:

    Stardusty Psyche thanks for the videos. I didn’t realize the campuses were getting this bad!

  9. Dhay says:

    Someone who has recently spoken out against “Safe Zones” is one of our own fairly-regulars here, Allallt. In his long and interesting blog post dated 22 June 2016, entitled A “Safe Space” for Everything but Intellectual Freedom: free speech, the regressive left and the cry baby privilege-knights, Allallt decries the suppression of free speech, the suppression of dissenting ideas and the creation of “Safe Spaces”, saying — this is just a taster — “If you don’t support free speech in contradiction to you, you don’t support free speech. It is exactly that simple.”

    So Allallt won’t suppress dissent and free speech.

    In that same blog post, Allallt took a passing mild side-swipe at one of Michael’s blog posts here at Shadow to Light; and in Allallt’s Comments section, tildeb’s first comment included a typically over-the-top rant against us at S2L.

    https://allallt.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/free-speech-the-regressive-left-and-the-cry-baby-privilege-knights/#comment-6168

    My reply to tildeb is at the bottom, here; I first posted it midday on Sunday 03 July 2016. The post did not appear immediately, which is probably normal for a first ever post to a blog, and that’s a good policy for cutting spammers dead, but approval and release should normally happen soon. Next morning, my reply still not released, and having had no communication from Allallt by e-mail or blog comment, I posted my reply again in order to ensure it had not vanished into the electronic aether: “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!” was the automated response, which in practical terms is confirmation of receipt of the first sending.

    It’s now been a week, and my reply to tildeb has still not been approved and appeared; nor have I had any communication from Allallt. This morning (10 July), when I tried yet again to post, I got that same automated response/receipt confirmation. Has Allallt has been occupied elsewhere, without time to attend to his blog — heck no, he’s made a new blog post mid-week (06 July), together with four (so far) replies to comments.

    I note that tildeb’s reply asked Allallt to “force” (no less) us S2L “authors” to post on his blog; that sounds like an invitation to me.

    You can of course do whatever you like on your own blog, Allallt, but when you publicly advocate free speech and allowing dissent, yet in your own practice, in the comments section of that blog post where you advocate free speech and dissent, are guilty of Coyne-style silent banning and the suppression of dissenting views, you will get called a hypocrite.

    My reply to tildeb, suppressed by Allallt:

    tildeb, presumably did you not bother to read the Shadow to Light post linked by Allallt, which post clearly says “Of course, the Regressive Left comes off no better”; I suggest you do so now; the post hardly champions what you call “illiberal liberalism” – I assume that “the Regressive Left” and what you call “illiberal liberalism” are essentially the same or mostly overlap – instead the post definitely condemns it.

    Michael, the sole author of the Shadow to Light blog, finished that post with “Yet what I see is one side [eg Sam Harris] trafficking in cherry picking, straw men arguments, stereotypes, and fear-mongering, while the other side insists this approach must be guided by political correctness.” Or in Shakespeare’s famous words, a plague on *both* houses.
    (My addition in [brackets].)

    You say, “… a blog with a stable of authors …”: Michael is the *sole* author, and always has been.

    Or perhaps English is not your first language, and you have inadvertently included those commenting on Michael’s posts as “authors”; if so, I am a regular “author”; likewise Allallt; and likewise you yourself were until you got yourself heavily moderated for flooding the threads with incoherent rants, rants which Michael says usually involved the vilification of himself or other commenters, ie until you were moderated and you finally flounced off with a “Fine. Your blog, your rules. Goodbye.”

    You continue, “… who specializes in spreading gross disinformation, discriminatory misrepresentation, and intentional vilification …”

    It’s ironic that you should accuse S2L regulars of “intentional vilification”: the comment by Michael which resulted in your flounce exit included, “I put you in the moderation queue because you a) don’t read what you criticize; b) don’t engage the actual arguments/points that are laid on the table; c) are trying to monopolize the comments sections with what you want to talk about, which usually involves the vilification of me or another commenter. The moderation policy here is simple – I allow more dissent than the New Atheist blogs of Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and Sam Harris. Since you have posted over 50 comments already, I have more than satisfied that rule.”
    (https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/more-creepy-behavior-from-sam-harris/#comment-11835)

    Or putting it more bluntly than Michael did, you were moderated for not engaging with other commenters (or “authors”, as you call them) but repeatedly posting abusive bullshit. For trolling.

    I imagine even Allallt would moderate your posts, should you behave as badly here on this own blog as you evidently did there.

    You continue, “… against any New Atheist who dares to point out this liberal hypocrisy and mewling support for any and all anti-liberal messaging… especially religious… in the name of liberalism, of course.”

    Again, the post Allallt linked to criticised New Atheists and “the Regressive Left” at equal length.

    I have trouble commenting further on this portion of your claims because, as so often happened in the case of your posts at S2L, I have trouble parsing it into anything that makes sense; I’ll not trouble myself to speculate what sense you might or might not have intended it to make. I don’t suffer gladly.

    You say, “Commenting on that blog is heavily moderated …”

    That’s nonsense. *Your* comments became moderated, and apparently very necessarily, for good reasons which included your vilification of others.

    How heavily have *you* been moderated at S2L, Allallt?

    You continue, “… and carefully edited to use the words of others to appear to support their bias and provide the facsimile of reason to justify their offal.”

    Which of your comments, pray, were edited. What “words of others” were substituted?

    (And what words have been substituted for yours, Allallt, instead of what words of your own, and how often?)

    Mind you, I look at some of my comments and wonder, did I really make so many grammatical, formatting and spelling errors – surely not! But in your support, tildeb, looking back at some of your posts, I have to concede, that the only way they could be such incoherent rants is if someone had deliberately altered your words to include gross disinformation, misrepresentation, and intentional vilification.

    Perhaps, tildeb, you are referring to other commenters quoting your actual own words back to you when commenting on them. Wow-ee. The full context of your words is always easily found in the comments you wrote them in, in the same thread; or on the rare occasions when your comment was in another thread, a link to your original comment was given.

    Or perhaps you are accusing me of, for example, misquoting Sam Harris’ words in my very very long condemnatory comment on his “Drugs and the Meaning of Life” blog post and “Waking Up” book chapter.
    (https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/new-atheists-fading/#comment-10766)

    You say, “There is no shred of intellectual honesty to be found on Shadow to Light …”

    I challenged you on S2L to fault me regarding that very very long condemnatory comment linked above. (Your reply was “I’m not going to refute what you’ve written” and “Everything you’ve written referencing what Harris has said is accurate in itself …” followed by the bullshit “… but it has failed to yield an accurate comprehension of the thesis Harris has put forward here. I know that may sound rather wonky …”. (Yeah, quite, wonky.))
    (https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/more-bad-science-and-bad-theology-from-sam-harris/#comment-11620)

    So my very very long condemnatory comment was not the “gross disinformation, discriminatory misrepresentation, and intentional vilification” you have accused *all* S2L commenters of, hence me also, hence the challenge, but the accurate truth.

    If you are going to make the claim that there is no shred of intellectual honesty to be found on Shadow to Light, you will please justify that claim by belatedly showing how that comment of mine had not a shred of intellectual honesty. If you do not, I will feel entitled to question and doubt your own intellectual honesty.

    You say, “I cannot urge strongly enough to let them wither on the vine on their site …”

    Good luck with that, I expect Allallt will keep visiting anyway.

    You continue, “… but force them to engage on your own [website] …”

    The kindest comment on what looks like inanity is that English is a foreign language to you. If you really do think Allallt can “force” S2L commenters to come here, you evidently lack basic knowledge and common sense. Anyway, be careful what you wish for.

    You continue, “… where their underhanded editing and selection cannot be used to effect.”

    This just repeats the wild and implausible accusations answered above.

    *

    I think Allallt would benefit from re-reading the S2L blog post he has commented on to better understand it; and to reflect that it was almost certainly an in-passing thought written down, a wry reflection on hypocrisy, rather than a big deal to Michael or to his readers. But Allallt is measured and moderate in his disparagement, and recognises there is “a nugget or two of truth”; there’s nothing worth picking over there.

    In stark contrast, your own denigration of Shadow to Light here, tildeb, has been thoroughly immoderate, has been mere vacuous waffle, and it almost certainly validly counts as ““gross disinformation, discriminatory misrepresentation, and intentional vilification”.

    Response to tildeb ends.

  10. Allallt says:

    Dhay, I can’t find this comment anywhere. It’s not in my spam, it’s not in my pending and, as you point out, it’s not on the post it should be on.
    Whatever the confusion, I apologise. I’ve never blocked, deleted or edited a comment at my blog. Feel free to try again.

  11. Dhay says:

    Allallt > Feel free to try again.

    Thanks. You have now read my comment (it’s the response above), my questions to you there were rhetorical and need no answer, and as I wrote towards the end, there’s nothing worth picking over with you, you are measured and moderate. I do value your contributions here at S2L, and welcome you back after your long absence.

    The main protagonist, tildeb, has appeared here on S2L recently, with a rather similar unevidenced rant to the one on your own blog, giving me the opportunity in a succeeding response to point tildeb to my response above and to challenge tildeb to provide a response to it containing actual rational (ie actually reasoned) content:

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/atheists-claims-to-have-suffered-great-harm-from-seeing-an-image/#comment-14387

    But I have no great hope of that: either tildeb has failed to respond or the response has been such a mindless vituperative rant that Michael has followed his previous practice and simply not allowed it through; either way, no loss.

    I am less inclined than I was to correct tildeb’s portrayal of S2L at your blog: the more I re-read the offending paragraph the more I am convinced that anything I could say would but gild the lily, tildeb’s paranoid over the top rant against S2L testifying eloquently against tildeb.

    Finally, it’s been three months now.

    Anyway, welcome back after your long absence.

  12. Allallt says:

    Dhay –

    Thanks for your welcome. Here’s to fruitful disagreements in the future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s