Hypocrisy and The Disdain for Freedom

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.

 

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

40 Responses to Hypocrisy and The Disdain for Freedom

  1. Ilíon says:

    In my opinion, neither speaker was all that impressive …

    After having watched a number of his YouTube videos, my impression of Sargon of Akkad is that he’s a “soft” leftist who thinks he’s isn’t a leftist, joined with the nearly-standard supercilious atheism, in the mode of “Well, sure, you can’t get nor sustain this modern Western culture which makes our very lives possible without a firm foundation of Christianity … but really, I’m above all that ‘God’ stuff.”

    I’ve never heard of the other guy, but he is, like SoA, a God-denier … and thus, by the logical necessity of his own axioms, a denier that he himself exists. What more does one need to know about a person to know that he’s a shallow thinker?

  2. TFBW says:

    As Sargon has said from time to time, SJWs think there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

    It is wryly amusing that Smith has so much in common with White Supremacists, though: both think, “freedom allows white men to control everything” — it’s just that White Supremacists think this is a good thing, whereas Smith thinks it’s a bad thing. Actually, I’m not sure that White Supremacists are so confident in the intrinsic superiority of white men as Smith is, since White Supremacists seem keen to get rid of the non-white competition, rather than let whitey prevail on his own merits.

    What is wrong with these people?

  3. Ilíon says:

    What is wrong with these people?

    What’s wrong with them (all) is that they are adamant rebels against God.

  4. TFBW says:

    @Ilíon: That answer is too broad. There are plenty of atheists (or similar) who aren’t obsessed with race. Why are some people so obsessed with physical traits over which people have no control, like gender, place of birth, and skin tone? The SJWs seem even more obsessed with it than their “supremacist” counterparts. It’s hard to find a unified theory which explains it.

    The charitable part of me wants to ascribe their behaviour to a burning desire for fairness and justice which is a right and proper reflection of God’s character; the cynical part of me wants to ascribe their peculiar emphasis on traits which are accidents of birth to a burning desire to deny any semblance of responsibility for anything. It seems like their universe is one in which the only actual human sin is failure to renounce privilege — a sin which is uniquely committable only by those deemed to have privilege in the first place. Those without privilege exist in a state of childlike innocence. Well, that’s not quite true: it’s always possible for an unprivileged person to commit blasphemy, and denounce the whole “privilege” narrative.

  5. stcordova says:

    Mike,

    Alan Fox and I have gotten along better as the years have gone by. Alan was blocked from telic thoughts. He claims he’s blocked on your blog. Is that true?

    Here is Alan’s message to you (through me):
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/noyau-2/comment-page-38/#comment-195898

    He wants to participate here.

    Sal

  6. Ilíon says:

    You asked a broad question, you got a broad answer.

  7. Ilíon says:

    “Those without privilege exist in a state of childlike innocence. Well, that’s not quite true: it’s always possible for an unprivileged person to commit blasphemy, and denounce the whole “privilege” narrative.”

    It’s largely a cultural civil war of some whites against all other whites. The “unprivileged” don’t really exist as persons for the leftists, but as mascots and interchangeable elements of their assigned victim-group. Thus, when one of them “steps out of line” by rejecting his assigned status and place, thereby acquiring personhood, he becomes an especial target of ire.

  8. Isaac says:

    After 5 minutes I just had no interest whatsoever in hearing the complete dimwit on the left talk.

  9. Dhay says:

    > 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.

    Someone else who was offended by that was Matt Dillahunty, who (with David FitzGerald) walked out at that point and listened elsewhere.

    [Embedded video @ 44:50]
    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/10/05/time-to-nuke-the-fault-line-and-split-the-rift-deeper/

    > 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!

    It’s not just wrong, says Dillahunty, it’s “deplorable”. [@ 46:00.] Heck, he’s known some feminists [@47:30+] who were (colloquially speaking) “batshit crazy in their views”, but he wouldn’t call even these mentally ill.

    What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Unless Dillahunty is being two-faced and hypocritical, he either has to accept that it’s OK to call some or all feminists “mentally ill” for being feminists, or else that it’s not OK to call some or all Christians “mentally ill for being Christians.

  10. Dhay says:

    Indeed, it would have to be “deplorable” to call Christians “mentally ill”.

  11. Chris says:

    I think it bears repeating that Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon) has claimed in video that feminism or some sort of “feminist system” is responsible for the crimes that is murders of Elliot Rodger’s, a spree-killer. To be absolutely clear and literal, he’s a pseudointellectual crazy person.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad#cite_note-FemSys-12
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM1NrSSHDSc

  12. TFBW says:

    Laci Green, to whom Sargon was responding in that 48-second excerpt of this 22-minute video to which Chris linked, claimed that “toxic masculinity” and “misogyny” were responsible for Elliot Rodger’s murder spree. Sargon’s main point was that Rodger’s obvious mental illness was what enabled him to cross the threshold into murder, and the feminist attitude of “masculine behaviour is inherently evil” is what pushed him there. Here is Sargon’s closing remark.

    Any kind of hatred can lead to murder — that is the problem. The question you and all of your stupid f*****g feminist cultists need to be asking is, “why are these men becoming misogynists in the first place?” What is this feminist-run society doing to them which is causing them to go insane?

    I don’t say that it’s a stellar argument, but it’s relevant in context — which is why Chris must rely on the 48-second excerpt, not the full original. (Also, as a matter of principle, SJW’s don’t link to anti-SJW sources, as that would constitute the sin of “giving them a platform.”) Seeing Sargon and Laci juxtaposed like this makes it clear that Laci, as a feminist, saw misogyny as an intrinsic male trait which could only be cured by curing men of their masculinity. Sargon definitely has a point that this is the kind of dehumanising no-win game which can push a fragile mind to breaking point.

    Anyhow, that was over three years ago. In the meantime, Sargon has mellowed a lot, engaging in more chuckles and eye-rolls than angry rants. Similarly, Laci Green has publicly recognised the dark side of feminism and Social Justice, and consequently been shunned as a turncoat for daring to question the Narrative and fraternise with the enemy. Fun times.

  13. iblase says:

    two unlikeable persons.

  14. iblase says:

    this video is like watching a live reading of a combox

  15. Dhay says:

    Having now heard right to the end of Matt Dillahunty’s “Mythcon and humanism” video, this snippet jumped out at me at 1:04:50:

    He is … primarily a propagandist … disenfranchised people … are latching onto him because Sargon says the things that they feel, and that makes them feel more right. And when people attack them as Nazis and neo-Nazis that makes them feel more right.

    (That’s how we ended up with Trump.)

    It jumped out at me because atheists are apparently the most mistrusted group in the USA; they are held in low regard; arguably they must feel disenfranchised, must feel attacked.

    I wonder, do we know any New Atheist leaders who are primarily propagandists, New Atheist leaders who atheists who feel disenfranchised are latching onto because the leaders say the things that they feel, and that makes them feel more right. And when people attack the atheists as immoral, as untrustworthy, and as more likely to be a serial killer than people in any other group, that makes them feel more right.

  16. Michael says:

    Alan Fox and I have gotten along better as the years have gone by. Alan was blocked from telic thoughts. He claims he’s blocked on your blog. Is that true?

    Yeah, that happened over 5 years ago. I finally got tired of having to constantly correct his misrepresentations.

    Here is Alan’s message to you (through me):

    Same old Alan. Five years later, he tries to paint me as someone who argued the New Atheist movement was “dangerous.” I never made that argument and that was never a true concern. I think any long term reader of this blog knows this. The dispute that we had back then was over the mere existence of an atheist movement. Fox denied its existence. Here’s just one of the examples of that on-going “debate” (see comments):

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/becoming-disillusioned-with-the-atheist-movement/

  17. Chris says:

    Actually TFBW you’re absolutely wrong. I linked to the full video.
    Clink on the first link I posted. See the highlighted blue section that says FULL VIDEO.
    Are you adult enough to admit you’ve made a mistake? A big mistake?

  18. Chris says:

    Not only is the full video there, but the rebuttal, and the musical remix. You don’t check the links all that closely do you TFBW?

  19. TFBW says:

    @Chris: I stand by my remarks. You provided two off-site links, neither of which was to the full video. I will admit that I hadn’t realised your link to the rationalwiki page went straight to the citations section, though. (I didn’t follow the link because I’ve seen that page before.) It might improve your communication if you occasionally gave such links context rather than just dropping them down, bare.

    By the way, when you said, “to be absolutely clear and literal, he’s a pseudointellectual crazy person,” which specific mental disorder to you claim he has? Or didn’t you mean “crazy” quite that literally, despite the emphasis on “clear and literal?”

  20. Chris says:

    Okay, TFBW you can stand by your wrong remarks. You only look like more of an immature fool. Two offsite links. One link to this very blog. One of those offsite links is to rationalwiki, which highlights in blue, the Full Video, The Relevant Portion (their words), The Rebuttal, and The Music Remix. I feel that’s more than enough context and you’re the only one who has requested additional context. Perhaps what you’d really prefer is to not appear so silly and unreasonable in written public form. Further I’m not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist which means I’m not going to diagnose Carl Benjamin. When people online start losing arguments they become arbitrarily litigious and grasp at any straw they can find, but I’ll humor you. To be absolutely clear and literal I personally believe that Carl Benjamin is a pseudointellectual crazy person. The links I’ve given in previous posts provide the evidence for why I feel the way I do.

  21. Ilíon says:

    Apparently, even pseudointellectual crazy persons can clean the clocks of intellectually dishonest special juicebox wankers.

  22. Chris says:

    @Ilíon
    I’ll just take your word for it friend. If he did good in his debate great. Carl can sit back with smug self-satisfaction.

  23. TFBW says:

    @Chris: so are there any anti-feminists on YouTube who aren’t pseudo-intellectual crazy people? How about Dave Cullen of Computing Forever? Or Karen Straughan? Is Sargon a one-off, or is this a fairly endemic sort of thing?

  24. Chris says:

    I don’t know TFBW. YouTube is a gigantic platform with millions of users. If you’re actually interested in a given person’s state of mind, how legitimately intelligent they are, or if you’re gauging whether they’re nothing more than a reactionary personality, you’d have to watch their videos and weigh their arguments. If you’d like more info on the alt-right, rationalwiki is a good starting point. I don’t consider Carl crazy because he’s an anti-feminist. He’s crazy cause he claimed feminism is responsible and to blame for the murders of Elliot Rodger.

  25. TFBW says:

    @Chris: do you consider rationalwiki a non-partisan source of information on the alt-right, or does it have an activist agenda of some sort, either pro or con? Also, why do you identify my question as pertaining to the alt-right? Sargon is left of centre, politically.

  26. Kevin says:

    Why would anyone use Rationalwiki for anything but finding out what Internet atheists think about a particular topic? Read the entry on Jesus, for example – it’s the most immature pile of tripe you’re likely to read on any given day.

    Conservapedia has a much more mature entry on the alt-right, if we’re going to use specialized wikis as sources. But there are far more thoughtful and informative sources of info than Rationalwiki for every conceivable topic, including alt-right.

  27. Chris says:

    @TFBW – I said if you’d like to know more about the alt-right rationalwiki is a good place to start. You’re more than welcome to do additional research on the movement if you’d like. If you’re asking me if rationalwiki is non-partisan in the sense that, “has the website endorsed a current political party?” I haven’t seen nor heard anything to that effect. I don’t believe the writers at rationalwiki have an activist agenda; again the only agenda the site has revealed are the bullet points on their mission page https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki. As for Sargon being “left of the center politically,” I disagree with Sargon’s self-assessment. Other people besides me have characterized him as having an “interesting” relationship with the alt-right. Is he part of the alt-right? To be honest, I don’t know. He contradicts himself so often that it’s genuinely difficult to figure out his true political stances, which quite frankly I don’t genuinely care enough about to spend time sifting through all his foolish drivel.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad#Incoherent_ideology
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad#Relationship_with_the_alt-right
    @Kevin – Okay Kevin you’re more than free to list off all the websites and sources which you consider more mature, thoughtful, and informative than rationalwiki with regards to the alt-right. Of course if we’re discussing internet atheists then it’s fine to use rationalwiki as a source. Also, I just read their page on Jesus, again being honest; I didn’t even know they had a page with reference to Jesus Christ. Is it immature? Yes, I’d agree with you that it’s immature. Also, sacrilegious and irreverent. However, we live in a society that believes in free speech. No matter how stupid I think a paragraph showing that, “there are people who appear to believe that Jesus was an alien or that aliens brought Jesus to Earth,” is… I just ignore it and instead focus on the Reasons to like Jesus section https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus#Reasons_to_like_him.

    He did not praise the rich, and said that they should give their money to the poor. (Matthew 19:21).
    http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm
    He told people to forgive rather than punish, because they themselves were guilty of many things.
    Alternatively, ignore the “tripe” entirely and just pick-up a copy of the King James Bible. That way you don’t even need an entry or rationalwiki at all to tell you about the man. You’ve got the source and you can judge for yourself.
    (full disclosure, don’t ask me. I’m Catholic and biased)

  28. Kevin says:

    I’m not sure why you’re so defensive over Rationalwiki. I simply – and accurately – described it as a bunch of man-children acting ignorant, so I would have no reason to believe a word they day unless it is verified elsewhere. So why not start elsewhere?

    For what it’s worth, I read some of their political pages. While not as overt in their bias, there is a clear favoring of left-wing issues if you pay attention. I don’t care one way or the other about the alt-right, but I do know not to let one’s opponents define you.

  29. TFBW says:

    @Chris: “However, we live in a society that believes in free speech.”

    That’s rich, given how hard the A+ SJWs tried to deny Sargon et al a platform, and punish Mythcon for giving them one. The SJW crowd most certainly do not believe in free speech. They think there is such a thing as “hate speech”, which must be vigorously censored and censured. And they identify this hate speech with the political right (which they also identify with Nazis, so we’re operating on an unconventional political map).

    In any case, I think you’ve made your position clear. You don’t believe the writers at rationalwiki have an activist agenda; you think Sargon is more or less alt-right by association; you also think that Sargon is so crazy and incoherent that there’s nothing to rebut in what he says. You also seem particularly passionate about pushing that narrative in places like this, when the opportunity arises, so you must have some underlying motivation for doing so. It’s a bit like Dawkins’ odd obsession with God: if atheists are really just people who lack belief in God, how has Dawkins made a career out of atheism — writing books about it, speaking at conferences about it, making documentaries about it, and so on? Similarly, if Sargon is just a crazy person who never says anything coherent, why do you even mention him? There are a great many people who blather incoherently on YouTube, let alone elsewhere. What’s so special about Sargon that you feel the need to rail against him in a forum like this?

  30. Chris says:

    @Kevin – Well Kevin, what they’ve written about Sargon has been verified many times elsewhere, so by your logic, you’d have good reason to believe what they’ve written / said.

    @TFBW – Forgive me TFBW, I wasn’t aware the 1st amendment had been repealed. Oh wait, it hasn’t been repealed and is still the law of the land. I guess that means the USA is still a country that believes in free speech. Doesn’t really matter what a small circle of screaming extremist kids think and believe now does it? They’re just wrong both ethically and legally. Something that’s actually kind of funny if you take a step back from it.

    “Similarly, if Sargon is just a crazy person who never says anything coherent, why do you even mention him?” I don’t know TFBW, no one mentioned Dawkins so why do you even mention him? Could it be that you view his career, position, stance, tone, writings, and the like as deeply wrong? As nonsense that should be rebutted so that people are aware of the scam he’s trying to pull?

    “What’s so special about Sargon that you feel the need to rail against him in a forum like this?” I thought I had made this clear several times, but again I’ll repeat myself. Carl is crazy and I single him out because, he claimed feminism is responsible and to blame for the murders of Elliot Rodger.
    “There are a great many people who blather incoherently on YouTube, let alone elsewhere.” Yes there are, though have you checked Sargon’s subscription numbers and channel view count lately? 715k subscribers and a channel with 185,996,917 total views. Sargon is bigger than Alex Jones on YouTube and he has more views then the Official White House Youtube channel. The White House has more subscribers, but not a whole lot more, only about 270k separates the two channels. Whether I like it or not, Sargon has an audience and I want his audience and people who could potentially become his audience to be acutely aware of the kooky crackpot things he’s said and believes. Much like I’d wager people who disagree with Dawkins bring up Elevatorgate to show other people that the person [Dawkins] their reading from and listening to has said and believes in some rather bunk rubbish.

  31. Ilíon says:

    I’ll just take your word for it friend.

    And yet, here you are, still *disputing* (*), friend.

    If he did good in his debate great. Carl can sit back with smug self-satisfaction.

    Do you not read? Yes, SoA can be “smug” … it rather goes along with being a God-denier. Plus, that silly accent tends to come across as “smug”, even when that isn’t the intent.

    But, “smug” or not, he still mopped the floor with the whiny and intellectually dishonest special juicebox wanker, Snowflake.

    And accusing him of being “smug” doesn’t even begin to address the question of whether he was right or wrong on this or that point. It’s really just another example of the tactics Snowflake was attempting to use … against someone who knew how to expose such tactics to well-deserved scorn.

    (*) disputing is not arguing.

  32. TFBW says:

    @Chris:

    I wasn’t aware the 1st amendment had been repealed.

    The amendments reflect the beliefs of those who wrote them, not those who live under them. You may as well say that you live in a society that believes in the right to bear arms. Maybe you do think that, and it’s certainly true that some people believe it, but there are pundits galore who preach gun control from atop the pile of corpses any time there’s a mass shooting. In any case, I’m sure you spend just as much time berating those naughty anti-free-speech SJWs and gun-control ideologues as you do proclaiming Sargon’s insanity, so I applaud your consistency.

    Whether I like it or not, Sargon has an audience and I want his audience and people who could potentially become his audience to be acutely aware of the kooky crackpot things he’s said and believes.

    His existing subscribers are probably much more familiar with what he actually says on a day to day basis than you are, given your professed lack of interest and claim that he spouts gibberish. You are a one-trick pony when it comes to Sargon: you harp that, “he claimed feminism is responsible and to blame for the murders of Elliot Rodger,” and you want everyone to ignore everything he says on that basis. Sorry, Chris, but many people in this world understand that statements can be accepted or rejected on a case by case basis, and that what you are promoting is a systematic genetic fallacy.

    Much like I’d wager people who disagree with Dawkins bring up Elevatorgate to show other people that the person [Dawkins] their reading from and listening to has said and believes in some rather bunk rubbish.

    Beautiful. Print it and frame it. This is exactly the difference between an SJW and someone who sticks to the old school of critical thinking. The SJW, such as yourself, picks an example of wrongthink, or bad behaviour, or unorthodox belief, then declares the rest of that person’s activity invalid by association. I would never bring up Elevatorgate to express my disagreement with Dawkins. Elevatorgate is not an argument. I disagree with Dawkins quite strenuously on most issues, but I address the content of his arguments when I do so, not his character, his motives, his politics, or any of those other wholly irrelevant things that SJWs obsess over.

    Thank you for your contribution, Chris. This is pure gold.

  33. stcordova says:

    Michael wrote: “Same old Alan…..”

    Hey thanks for responding. I wasn’t trying to stir up trouble, but oddly I started liking the guy more over the years, so I tried to help him out. Anyway, I respect your decision, and thanks for taking time to explain.

  34. Dhay says:

    In his 19 October 2017 blog post entitled “You’d think the importance of emotions & empathy would be of obvious importance to any movement” PZ Myers praises and links to a new podcast by Thomas Smith:

    There’s good stuff in there about this myth of über rationality by Libertarians and some atheists…

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/10/19/youd-think-the-importance-of-emotions-empathy-would-be-of-obvious-importance-to-any-movement/

    I haven’t actually listened to Smith’s 68 minute podcast — life’s too short, and I really don’t understand why enthusiastic YouTube atheists are so keen on the spoken word, unless to the buzz-phrase ‘Science and Reason’ should be added ‘and Illiteracy’ — but I have followed one or two of Smith’s links to eg a discussion of Antonio Damasio’s studies into how emotions are essential to good decision-making and how the emotionally impaired can have trouble even reaching a decision, let alone a good one, and I heartily agree with Damasio and Smith, they are…

    … up to a point, that is; the point has been reached and long passed when normal beneficial emotionality, in which we access the System 1 unconscious-competence intuitive wisdom we have build up and internalised over many years has been replaced by an in-your-face screaming tirade of hate and abuse based upon a narrative.

    *

    Myers also includes:

    I’m finding that there’s no one more emotional than an alt-right supremacist getting challenged on their cherry-picked and distorted “facts”, while the lefties are usually quite happy to acknowledge that their values are a product of their emotions, specifically empathy.

    I have no knowledge of the US alt-right, and the British EDF seems to have disappeared from view, but what I have seen from the posts here at S2L, on Jerry Coyne’s blog, and Peter Boghossian’s tweets etc, that looks very much like the pot calling the kettle black.

    *

    There’s no mention of Centrists in that last quote; which is probably because Myers reckons that Centrists — didn’t we used to call them moderates? — are actually alt-right supremacists themselves:

    Centrists who support Nazis, Nazis. It’s half a dozen of one, six of the other.

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/10/19/how-to-find-nazis/#comment-1097061

    Myers declares Centrists who support Nazis [are] Nazis, six is six.

    If you read the blog post and tweet this responds to (and the first response), Nazis are evidently anyone you disagree with enough to hurl hatred and abuse, plus anyone who chides you for hurling hatred and abuse and thus qualifies in the hater’s eyes as a Centrist, hence Nazi.

    There’s no one more emotional than an alt-right supremacist getting challenged? Look to yourself, Myers and to your fellow SJW+.

  35. Dhay says:

    Jerry Coyne claims to be above this sort of thing, and his 20 October 2017 blog post entitled “Friday: Hili dialogue” includes:

    Also depressing are the number of people I’ve seen, on Facebook and elsewhere, approving of Nazis being punched (apparently a Nazi got punched in Florida yesterday when Richard Spencer was speaking). I cannot and will not condone physical violence, even against those, like genuine Nazis and white supremacists, whom we most despise. Approbation of such violence makes me ill. As does calling everyone we don’t like “Nazis”.

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/friday-hili-dialogue-176/

    He doesn’t want to refer to PZ Myers blog post, though he evidently knows of it, the timing’s too coincidental.

    Coyne is obviously less inclined towards violence than Myers, indeed if Coyne gets ill at the mere thought of violence, and also ill at the thought of abusive name-calling, he surely qualifies as a ‘snowflake’.

    But if Coyne is less inclined to violence, is he more moderate (or ‘Centrist’) than Myers? I think not: just look at how he leaps instantly into outraged action to castigate (politely and non-violently) anyone, whether atheist or religious, who is a moderate; the moderate religious, he calls “accommodationists™”, the moderate atheists “accommodatheists™”:

    I decided to Coyne a new world to replace “faitheism,” and it’s in the title. “Accommodatheism™.” It’s the tendency of some nonbelievers to try to make common cause with believers, or at least to stop criticizing them.

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/accommodatheism-i-lets-all-stop-going-after-the-low-hanging-believers/

    No, Coyne is less violent, less coarse, but just as immoderate.

  36. Dhay says:

    What of Peter Boghossian? In the interview one year ago by Religion Dispatches asked of the two Atheos App managers Christine Vigeant and Sarah Paquette, both former students of Boghossian and now evidently acting as spokespeople for him and his App, “… what is the purpose of engaging with religious people who are non-violent, moderate, and not attempting to convert anyone themselves?” Vigeant answered:

    “A lot of times people who are moderate give cover to violent beliefs because they are using the same kind of reasoning. Moderate religious beliefs transfer over into the public sphere,” argued Vigeant, using the example of restricted reproductive rights as such a spillover effect.

    http://religiondispatches.org/atheos-review/

    The first thing to note is that “violent beliefs”. I missed then that this is SJW-speak; SJWs hadn’t then had much public attention, whereas now the language is readily recognisable. It seemed odd to me then (and even now) that beliefs can possibly be called violent, surely it’s actions or volcanic eruptions which are properly called violent; and her claim that “restricted reproductive rights” is an example of resultant violence astonished and still astonishes me — surely this is arse-backwards, and it’s unrestricted reproductive rights (double-speak for abortion) which is violent, and murderously so.

    Next to note is that this is just as intolerant of ‘Centrists’ and moderates as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne (see above); the faithful Boghossianite mouthpiece, Vigeant, is just as extreme and just as intolerant of moderates as they.

    *

    I see that when I first commented on the interview and Vigeant’s quote, back before it became apparent that quite a few atheists think that atheism has a major alt-right wing, I took the piss out of Vigeant (and Coyne) with:

    That is, applying Vigeant’s standard of rationality to Eiynah words, approved of by Coyne, we can conclude that the moderates in the “atheist” community are enabling alt-right nationalism.

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/are-anti-trump-new-atheist-parents-abusing-their-children/#comment-15595

    Eerily similar to Myers’ attitude, eh. Difference is, I was taking the piss, whereas the others are very serious.

    *

    In the light of my acquired knowledge of SJW-speak, I think that when the interviewer reports that…

    Boghossian has openly referred to his attempts to “disabuse” people of their faith as “interventions,” which include some less than charming rituals. For example, Boghossian said in an interview that he regularly went out of his way to be served by a bank teller who wears a cross, so that he could deploy his rational pedagogical tools on her.

    … we can read between the lines (as the interviewer evidently did) that Boghossian knowingly and willfully engaged in what’s nowadays termed ‘microaggression’.

    Then there’s the Muslim, Safy-Hallan Farah:

    Farah said she was a huge Dawkins fan when she considered herself an atheist in her late teens, but she found the New Atheists increasingly myopic as she became more familiar with their work. “Dawkins and all the skeptics I used to admire don’t complicate their analyses,” says Farah. “They’re untrustworthy to me because their criticism of Islam is Orientalist and selective and often just a way to despicably condemn black and brown people with ‘reason and rationality.’”

    And we are back where we started, except this time it is Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, not Christians, who have and who enable “violent beliefs” and “violent” language.

  37. Dhay says:

    Then there’s Sam Harris:

    The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism.

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/sam-harris-criticizes-religious-moderates-and-misses-the-target/

    And by implication, moderates are also not speaking out against religious extremism and extremist terrorism.

    Harris obviously doesn’t get out much; the ‘Religion Prof’ progressive Christian blog, with its many anti-literalist memes and messages is but the tip of the iceberg.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/

    Again, it’s that idea that moderates, by not speaking out against those on the fringe, “enable” violent extremists. And, by implication, mild moderates are as much to be detested and opposed as the violent extremists.

  38. Dhay says:

    Then there’s Peter Boghossian’s silly article (with Phil Torres and James Lindsay):

    The movement [**] offered a heretofore unwelcomed perspective: That every religion has negative consequences, and that even religious moderates contribute to the problem because, by affirming that faith is a legitimate reason to hold beliefs, they enable religious extremists.

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/peter-boghossians-silly-article/

    Boghossian, Lindsay, Torres are also against ‘Centrist’ moderates for “enabling” the extremists.

    *

    ( ** “The movement” is explicitly identified as New Atheism: whatever Jerry Coyne thinks and says, his Big Name friends think and say there is a movement.)

  39. Dhay says:

    PZ Myers looks very immoderate at the moment: his 30 October 2017 blog post entitled “Guess who’s going to visit the Ark Park?” comments on a Ken Ham tweet:

    Rafael Cruz the Father of U.S. Senator @tedcruz is looking forward to visiting the @ArkEncounter soon. We look forward to hosting you!!

    Yes! The mastermind behind the JFK assassination and father of the Zodiac Killer is going to be roaming about the Big Gay Wooden Boat. ….

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/10/30/guess-whos-going-to-visit-the-ark-park/

    My British eyes and lack of detailed knowledge of the US scene must surely be misleading me. It looks very like Myers has just accused Rafael Cruz of being “The mastermind behind the JFK assassination”, and senator Ted Cruz of being “the Zodiac Killer”.

    I looked for confirmation of the latter; apparently no one knows, still, though there’s no shortage of speculation as to the possibilities:

    However, one fact completely rules him out: Ted Cruz was born two years after the Zodiac killings began.

    Even so, some people started digging further to refute this new information. These speculators suggested that there was a high chance that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was fake and that he was born in Kenya. So why can’t Ted Cruz’s birth certificate be fake as well?

    http://listverse.com/2017/07/25/top-10-high-profile-people-suspected-of-being-the-zodiac-killer/

    Well there you are, then, if Ted Cruz is actually twenty years older than his birth certificate claims, he could have been 18 at the time of the first killing. It’s such an implausibility that only a certain type of nutter — a type of nutter apparently including Myers — is likely to give it credence.

    But Myers didn’t stop at stating there was a (remote) possibility Ted Cruz might be the Zodiac Killer, or at insinuating or implying Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, Myers seems to be categorical that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. That’s stupid.

    And it’s also reckless: Myers is having trouble with Richard Carrier trying to sue his pants off over something far less clear cut; Myers has now handed Ted Cruz, on a plate, a winnable libel action.

    His father Raphael Cruz, too, unless there’s something I haven’t been told.

    What part of the use of ‘Science and Reason’ led to such stupidity and recklessness?

    *

    Myers’ immediately previous blog post, “Skepticon 10 is coming up soon”, relates the financial difficulties of another party being sued by Carrier, in the very same action as against Myers, and seeks to help Skepticon raise more funds — because they have a little less than a third of the funds they need, and less than two weeks to go.

    They do have more funds, but it’s tied up in their Legal Defense (against Carrier) Fund.

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