Self-identifying

unacceptable-to-self-identify-as-a-christian

Advertisements
Image | This entry was posted in post-modernism, Social Justice, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Self-identifying

  1. Nolan says:

    Does this correspond to something in reality, or is it another persecution fantasy that indulges a victimization narrative?

    Let’s start with Rachel Dolezal. Is there anything remotely similar to the kind of support for her as suggested by the comic? On the contrary, the reaction to her has been virtually entirely negative.

    Is there widespread acceptance for people who identify as a cat? Of course not, and of course the is idea is pretty stupid. I suppose it’s meant to be a parody, yet one which undermines very point the comic attempts to make.

    And when was the last time someone endured a public humiliation, including boos, for identifying as a Christian? In reality it is the opposite. Being an open atheist carries a major social stigma, and it is one of the greatest handicaps in running for public office. Politicians get votes for touting their Christian identity, not the other way around.

    That leaves transgenderism. Yes, in recent years transgenders have gained more acceptance. Is this some sort of problem? Gays were once as hated, but are now more accepted. Remember when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on gays (and feminists, and “abortionists”, and the ACLU, and the People for the American Way)? That level of total bullshit is no longer, for the most part, spouted by respected public figures, at least openly. Which is a good thing. No, transgenders are not going bring about the end of civilization. Most people aren’t bothered by them because, you know, there are more important things than worrying about other people’s gender and sex life (let alone policing it).

    With 3 out of 4 parts being fantasy, the comic receives a failing grade of 25% on the reality scale. I don’t see it as pure coincidence that it comes from a blog that advocates climate change denialism, among other things. Research has shown that false beliefs tend to cluster together. And for that matter, it’s not entirely surprising that an intelligent design proponent picked it up on his blog, and that denizens of said blog include young Earth creationists.

  2. Dhay says:

    Nolan > … a blog that advocates climate change denialism …

    Odd, a quick look at the Bookworm Room blog under the tag turns up:

    WHEN, exactly, in the course of Earth’s history, did the climate NOT “change?”

    http://www.bookwormroom.com/2016/04/13/government-gaslighting-california-puc-pushes-dodgy-climate-science/

    That’s hardly climate change denialism.

    Please provide a quote from, and link to, wherever it is the author does deny climate change.

  3. Dhay says:

    That’ll teach me not to use triangular brackets; read: … “under the tag “Climate” turns up … etc.

  4. Regual Llegna says:

    Nolan says:
    “Does this correspond to something in reality, or is it another persecution fantasy that indulges a victimization narrative?”

    – Like “islamophobia” and “homophobia” from the liberals?

    “Let’s start with Rachel Dolezal. Is there anything remotely similar to the kind of support for her as suggested by the comic? On the contrary, the reaction to her has been virtually entirely negative.”

    – Not entirely negative from the SJWs, in fact encouraged, is the reason why she self-identifies.

    “Is there widespread acceptance for people who identify as a cat? Of course not, and of course the is idea is pretty stupid. I suppose it’s meant to be a parody, yet one which undermines very point the comic attempts to make.”

    – Yeah “pretty stupid” in your opinion, but no mentally ill?, but chrsitians are mentally ill with 100% of objetivity and truth in the gnus atheist mind.

    “And when was the last time someone endured a public humiliation, including boos, for identifying as a Christian? In reality it is the opposite. Being an open atheist carries a major social stigma, and it is one of the greatest handicaps in running for public office. Politicians get votes for touting their Christian identity, not the other way around.”

    – “And when was the last time someone endured a public humiliation, including boos, for identifying as a Christian? In reality it is the opposite” Seriously, the opposite?, like the “muh cruzades meme”?
    – “Being an open atheist carries a major social stigma, and it is one of the greatest handicaps in running for public office.” Because every atheist politician has an anti-capitalist, socialist or communist ideology. And the better, most succefull examples of “proud atheists nations” goverments are full communists and unyelling marxists, atheists and communists per China lider words.
    – The connection between atheism and communism has never been revoked, in fact ecouraged by the socialists marxists. And using the gnus atheists words: “atheism means nothing; not claim, mindset or world view at all” Nothing = not matter, don’t exist or is not important.

    “That leaves transgenderism. Yes, in recent years transgenders have gained more acceptance. Is this some sort of problem? Gays were once as hated, but are now more accepted. Remember when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on gays (and feminists, and “abortionists”, and the ACLU, and the People for the American Way)? That level of total bullshit is no longer, for the most part, spouted by respected public figures, at least openly. Which is a good thing. No, transgenders are not going bring about the end of civilization. Most people aren’t bothered by them because, you know, there are more important things than worrying about other people’s gender and sex life (let alone policing it).”

    – First: You confuse transgenderism (gender disporia) with being gay (affeminate).
    – Question?: “Gays were once as hated” answer: the liberals and their muslims, sharia and islam.
    – “Remember when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on gays (and feminists, and “abortionists”, and the ACLU, and the People for the American Way)” (Why abortionists in cuotes?) He blamed but not killed, and i and manny other forgotten that guy (wich should they you something). One of the “reasons” (Koran and other islamic texts) muslim terrorists want to kill westerns because they are depraved, and they kill westerns for that, so they, the islamic terrorists, kill people in 9/11 because all that and manny others things that are unislamic too,

    “With 3 out of 4 parts being fantasy, the comic receives a failing grade of 25% on the reality scale. I don’t see it as pure coincidence that it comes from a blog that advocates climate change denialism, among other things. Research has shown that false beliefs tend to cluster together. And for that matter, it’s not entirely surprising that an intelligent design proponent picked it up on his blog, and that denizens of said blog include young Earth creationists.”

    – Why you as “atheist” care about things that you believe are fantasy? why you want to grade the comic? why you care?
    – “Research has shown that false beliefs tend to cluster together.” what research? what methods of study? what sample and universe? what resources? Did you know that the “March for SCIENCE ™” people say that science is political, then why should i believe a obscure research?
    – This is not a blog about deny “climate change”(obejtive selted SCIENCE ™), “intelligent design” (not really important info at all in the life of anyone, like the theory of evolution) or literal biblical creationism, this is a blog is about:
    In the final pharagraph of the ABOUT page of this blog:
    “So this is not an anti-atheism blog nor is it a Christian apologetics blog. This is a blog that keeps a critical eye on the New Atheist movement and focuses on the narrative the New Atheists are trying to spread and entrench. And while the New Atheists are a fringe minority who occupy the extreme ends of the spectrum, they do have allies and sympathetic ears in mainstream media and academia (the major opinion shapers of our culture). So my main reason for posting is to help myself and others to better understand the New Atheist movement and its narrative.”

    Note: i am a person that believe in continuous natural climate change, but not in the highly political man-made global warming. You are confused about what its the denial in climate change.

    1.- By the way, i am corious, why you post a comment in this blog if your believe that the author and his users, “denizens”, are deniers of SCIENCE ™?
    2.- Why you don’t like to write about the science as if the sceince if a monolith, why not the sciences, did you give the same authority to all knowledge as SCEINCE (TM)?
    3.- What systems are the best, objetivism (absolute) or relativism (relative), empiricism (experience) or rationalism (phylosophy and study), positivism (truth/rules) or skepticism (doubt)? (Note: You can have both ways, every pair is an opposing point of view, if you go both ways and can accept the fact that are opposing you will have cognitive dissonance, hipocresy, selectivism or/and denial)

  5. TFBW says:

    It’s good to see that Nolan is keeping the now old-school traditions of New Atheism alive in this world which is increasingly dominated by SJWs.

  6. Michael says:

    With 3 out of 4 parts being fantasy, the comic receives a failing grade of 25% on the reality scale.

    Most satirical cartoons would fail if interpreted so literally.

    Besides, I think your core interpretation is flawed. It’s not about a persecution fantasy that indulges a victimization narrative. It’s a narrative of hypocrisy where the audience is the same in all four panels.

    Concerning the trans and Christian, I’ve previously showcased such hypocrisy.

    Concerning race and cats, I think the cartoon speaks to the slippery slope. As for race, do you think you can make a stronger case that race is biological than you can in arguing that sex is biological? What about the existence of a racial spectrum? And if someone truly believes and feels like they are a cat, doesn’t social justice logic demand that we acknowledge them as such?

    As for being an intelligent design proponent, you have raised that three or four times already. Apparently, that’s important to you. So let’s see. According to wiki, intelligent design is defined as follows:

    Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”

    1. I am an evolutionist, not a creationist.
    2. I never proposed a religious argument for the existence of God.
    3. I never proposed an argument for the existence of God.
    4. I always insisted that intelligent design is not science (and explained why).

    So according to this definition, no, I was not an intelligent design proponent.

    What I did was to explore the plausibility of neo-Darwinian evolution being influenced by an intelligent design and fleshed out such a possibility as the front-loading of evolution. If you consider this to be intelligent design, then it would mean the wiki definition of intelligent design is deeply erroneous.

  7. Harrier says:

    For those who don’t know, the panel about the girl self-identifying as a cat is a reference to a real-life person from Norway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLmwLcLikXQ

    And that’s not even the strangest case. For example, there is also a story about a man who identifies as a dragon lady, who went as far as to surgically remove “its” nose and ears, among other things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YB4xpw57eU

    It’s just transgenderism taken to its logical extreme, really.

  8. Nolan says:

    Hi Mike. You were a prolific champion for Behe back in the day, so much so that you were awarded several mentions in Creationism’s Trojan Horse. There’s no way to squirm out of the characterization of ID proponent. But perhaps that was the old Mike Gene? I had asked previously if your views had changed, and I don’t think you responded.

  9. Dhay says:

    Nolan > Hi Mike. You were a prolific champion for Behe back in the day, so much so that you were awarded several mentions in Creationism’s Trojan Horse.

    Odd, that document is freely available on the internet, eg the PDF from:

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwif0KH-9cfTAhXCPxQKHarKA8EQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedivineconspiracy.org%2FZ5233X.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG21ID-o8KGMYUp_t__b1jT-ccQrg

    I find no mentions there of a Mike Gene, a Mike, or of any Michael except Michael Behe. Would you therefore please substantiate your claim by quoting at least one of those mentions you have assured us are there — I’ll find the others for myself once you identify who or what I’m looking for.

    *

    In my last response I asked you to “Please provide a quote from, and link to, wherever it is the author [of the Bookworm Room blog] does deny climate change”, and I don’t think you responded.

    I had provided evidence the blog’s author not only does not deny climate change, but denies that climate change can be denied. You appear to have been shooting your mouth off or lying — presenting ‘alternative facts’, as recent terminology has it.)

    *

    Perhaps you will settle my growing doubts about your integrity by providing the evidence I have requested and by actually substantiating your otherwise apparently baseless or lying claims.

  10. Dhay says:

    @Nolan:

    I see that there’s multiple documents out there with the same name, and that you were referring to the book, viewable on Amazon. No need to respond to that bit, as I do indeed see the name “Mike Gene” there; though you have yet to demonstrate you were not just shooting your mouth off regarding the Bookworm Room blog.

  11. Michael says:

    Hi Mike. You were a prolific champion for Behe back in the day,

    Your memory is faulty. What I did was to take the concept of IC seriously. But not as some metric that rules out evolution (I never made that argument), but as a concept that helped us decipher which parts of evolution were cooption-dependent. This is significant because cooption blurs into preadaptation – a teleological concept. What’s more, it also speaks to evolvability. something that can plausibly intersect with an intelligent design of life. Because I was not one to mock and pooh pooh the concept of IC, and did defend Behe from some of the personal attacks that were launched against him, you misremember my position.

    so much so that you were awarded several mentions in Creationism’s Trojan Horse.

    Those authors, who oddly enough, never bothered to contact me, seriously misinterpreted a single forum posting from 15 years ago. I documented their errors at the time. Other mentions were in the footnotes and refer to me arguing that ID was not science and should not be taught in the public school science classes.

    There’s no way to squirm out of the characterization of ID proponent.

    It’s not a question of squirming; it’s a question of intellectual honesty. You label me as an ID proponent without bothering to lift a finger to define your terms/labels. That’s not right. So I go to wiki to pull up the popular definition of ID, and then note 4 very significant ways in which the label does not apply. You ignore those facts. Is there a reason you want to ignore those facts?

    You cannot a) insist I was/am an ID proponent while b) maintaining the wiki definition of ID is correct. I take that back. You can talk out both sides of your mouth like this, as no one can prevent the expressions of your free will. But if you insist on using both sides of your mouth, it would simply mean your approach is fundamentally dishonest and deceptive.

    So I ask – do you think the wiki definition of ID is basically correct?

    But perhaps that was the old Mike Gene? I had asked previously if your views had changed, and I don’t think you responded.

    Given that your views of me seem to be anchored in confusion and ignorance, you would need to spell out what views you are talking about. I don’t think you ever did that, which is not surprising. I don’t think you are capable of accurately describing my views.

  12. Regual Llegna says:

    Gnus atheists use the words “creationist” and “ID proponent”, even unrelated to any religion, as slurs, with the aim of characterizing the ideological opposition as intellectually incapable.

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