Here’s the video of the debate between atheist Sargon of Akkad and atheist Thomas Smith.
I actually watched most of it, although I gave up half way through the Q&A. In my opinion, neither speaker was all that impressive and made me feel like I was watching a dorm room debate between roommates who didn’t like each other. In fact, it was a good thing they were constantly sipping water and not beer.
But there were certain points where Smith just reeks with the stench of hypocrisy. For example, at around 8:40, Smith is complaining about a video Sargon made where he accused feminists of being mentally ill. Smith is oh so offended and ineffectively rips into Sargon. Please. It was always okay for the atheist community to accuse religious people, especially Christians, of being mentally ill. That’s been a traditional talking point in the atheists’ anti-religious rhetoric for decades. But now that one faction of atheists has turned this tactic on another faction, suddenly it is wrong!
Then at about 16:00, Smith is complaining that Sargon cherry picks the “worse people on the other side” to mock and uses those extreme examples to “straw man” the social justice community. Er, Thomas, that just happens to be the very standard approach atheist activists have long used against religious people for decades. In fact, it’s the very approach that defines activist Hemant Mehta’s daily blog contributions. Once again, the social justice activist squeals when the standard anti-religious approach is turned on them.
Of course, this hypocritical stench is not new. I noticed it over five years ago when I discussed social justice atheist Jen McCreight’s decision to abandon atheist activism because of the way she was being treated by her fellow activists:
In other words, everything was just fine when Jen was part of this toxic community of haters as long as they were “giggling at creationists.” But when the same hate was directed at her, suddenly it became a bad thing. I don’t know if Jen herself engaged in any hate against creationists and religious people, but she giggled at it. And I can assure her there are many creationists and religious people out there who can completely empathize when she complains of her “words getting twisted, misrepresented, and quotemined” or when she is confronted with “abusive comments, tweets, and emails” or when she finds “comments of people imitating her identity” to humiliate her or finding out that “multiple people have threatened to contact her employer with “evidence” that she is a bad scientist.”
Y’see, the hate in the atheist community did not poof into existence. It, along with all the haters, have always been there. And so when Jen giggled at hate that was directed at religious people, she helped to encourage and nurture it. And now she feels its sting and it becomes “wrong.”
So that leads me to wonder. Is Jen McCreight opposed to this hateful behavior on principle or is she simply opposed to it when she is on the receiving end? If she could get all the haters to stop hating on women, would she then rejoin this community of hate as long as it hates on religious people? If so, there is nothing noble or principled about McCreights decision to stop blogging or founding the A+ movement. They are just acts of selfishness, such that hate is bad when it hurts Self and hate is good when it serves Self. If that is the case, McCreight’s problem is not with hate; it’s with hate that is perceived to be misdirected.
I have no respect for the insincere, moral preening of social justice atheists. It’s contemptible.
But Smith not only illustrates the hypocrisy of social justice atheists, but also their totalitarian leanings. At 28:29, he actually says:
freedom allows white men to control everything
And we know what that means in the mind of a social justice atheist – freedom must go. No wonder this crowd mocks and opposes the concept of free speech. No wonder so many of them justify the use of violence against those who dare disagree with social justice ideology. In their minds, freedom is only good as a means to an end – a mechanism to help them acquire power. Once they have power, freedom must go in the name of Justice.
Interestingly enough, around 58:00, Smith appeals to the atheists’ denial of free will to support his position. After all, Sargon’s appeals to individualism, freedom, and personal responsibility don’t match up well with determinism. Back in July, I told ya that determinism would eventually be fused with social justice ideology.