Monday, September 9, 2013

Discussing the biggest threat to mens rights (a WBB mirror)



a serious, mostly foul language free (well, foul language free for me) discussion with the WBB about the state of the MRM, blocking, doxxing, cowardice, and all and sundry regarding the most recent AVfM witch hunt.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Responding to little jenny's rationalizations

 little jenny mcreight has decided to write about what she calls '...some of the common misconceptions about "atheism+" that have been thrown at me." the fact is, it's a roll call of rationalizations, fallacious argument, and stuff that can only be charitably called crap. these are the questions she's been 'thrown', the relevant part of her answers (on my view, that is) and some of my clearly misogynist observations relating to each.


1. Atheism+ is just secular humanism! Just call it what it is! 


"...I just don’t understand why some of them are so cranky that we…what, are saying we agree with their ideals and values? Let’s not let progress get derailed by discussions about labels."
indeed, jenny. if we are going to discuss the relative lack of importance of labels, could you please be a bit clearer on why 'atheism' isn't a good enough label? or 'secular humanist'?

2. Why does everyone have to agree with your particular dogma?

No one has to agree with me, and I don’t want dogma. I want to be able to discuss social justice issues from the context of atheism and skepticism. Discuss, not dictate. Right now we can’t even do that without being threatened, trolled, and derailed. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the views of people who support A+
actually, you can, and are dictating. forget about calling people who disagree with you 'evil', given the fact that you claim you "...don’t necessarily agree with all of the views of people who support A+", and given that surly amy roth has taken it upon herself to coerce atheist leaders to lend support to your maniacal cause, i would call on you to repudiate richard carrier's hate filled rhetoric:

There is a new atheism brewing, and it’s the rift we need, to cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.’s back into the sewers and finally disown them, once and for all. I was already mulling a way to do this back in June when discussion in the comments on my post On Sexual Harassment generated an idea to start a blog series building a system of shared values that separates the light side of the force from the dark side within the atheism movement, so we could start marginalizing the evil in our midst, and grooming the next generation more consistently and clearly into a system of more enlightened humanist values. Then I just got overwhelmed with work and kept putting it off on my calendar for when I had a good half a day or so to get started on that project.

3. Person X supports A+ and said this really shitty thing, therefore A+ is evil!
 
 There I can establish a mission for what A+ is truly about.
lemme be clear: richard carrier has set out rules that he expects all adherents of atheism+ to follow, and he has been quite clear on the need to kick anyone out of the movement that doesn't adhere to them, while a priori vilifying them. you yourself have said you are 'establish[ing] a mission for what a+ is truly about. i reiterate my challenge to you: repudiate, publicly, the acidic, hateful speech that carrier has spewed forth, and then, please, explain how the 'mission' of a+ is not a dogma.


there were more questions...but like any disease, stupid is infectious. i'll let someone else finish the list, before enough of my brain cells commit suicide that i'd become a zombie aplustard.

cheers.

Schroedinger's Murderer - a parody, so you can go ahead and DMCA your moms if you like

Dear Colored People, Thank you for reading.

Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. Your pants are secured by a belt at your waist. You are well spoken. You are clean and articulate. You respect whites. You like whites. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and friendly relationship with a white person. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that white person—you don't work for them, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter this person.

So far, so good. Miss WhiteBread, your humble instructor, approves. Human connection, respect, camaraderie: there is nothing wrong with these yearnings.

Now, you want to become acquainted with a white person you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that white people are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a colored person. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

"that sho' is strange! i wanna go inna blaze 'a gloree! layin' dem bustas down!

Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into white neighborhoods? Because, for white people, it is. When I go out with a colored person, I always leave the colored person's full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or they begin to worry. If they don't hear from me by three or so, they’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?
So when you, a colored person, approaches me, I have to ask myself: Will this colored person assault or kill me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? Many whites will be assaulted in their lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any murderers, but consider the sheer number of murders that must occur. These murders are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Mandingo Bruthas. While you may assume that none of the coloreds you know are murderers, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every colored person commits an average of ten murders (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of murderers in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. This also means that all of you are murderers, since by now, you've murdered all the non-murderers. How do I know that you, the nice colored person who wants nothing more than companionship and fellowship, are not this murderer?

I don’t.

When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Murderer. You may or may not be a colored person who would commit murder. I won’t know for sure unless you attempt to murder me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of colored person—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

Fortunately, you’re one of the “good ones”. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the whites with whom you interact feel as safe as possible.

To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%. For some whites, particularly whites who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable. Those whites do not want to be approached, no matter how nice you are or how much you’d like to hang out with them. Okay? That’s their right. Don’t get pissy about it. Whites are under no obligation to hear the sales pitch before deciding they are not in the market to buy.

The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat, though all of you are some type of threat.
This means that some strange colored people should never approach whites in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are unemployed (or employed in a working class occupation), the prophet of your own religion, or if you have pants too large and baggy or prison 'teardrop' tattoos all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a white person cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life without the presence of whites, but I suggest you start with sitting at a desegregated lunch counter, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a white person who will be willing to tolerate them.

Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a joke about crackas? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a white person.

Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a white person and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a white person in most public places. If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the white person's ability to flee in case of threat is limited. Ask yourself, “If I were a murderer, would this white person be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach them.

On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the white person is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good.
The third point: whites are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect white’s communication to you.

You want to say what's up? to the white person on the subway. How will they react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because they're already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb them. Really. Even to say that you like their straight hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for whites to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Murderer. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win them over with charm or flattery. Believe what they're signaling, and back off.

If you speak, and the white person responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, they're saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary colored person with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”

On the other hand, if they turn towards you, make eye contact, and they respond in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to them, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.

The fourth point: If you fail to respect what whites say, you label yourself a problem.
There’s a colored person with whom I once played racquetball—just one match, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after that, the colored person sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed the colored person back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single match. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Do they still e-mail?

Yeah. They do. About every two weeks.

This colored person scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Prison Tattoos. (Who, after all, is likely to be guilty of nothing more than a minor drug offense that a white would never serve time for.) You see, Mr. E-mail has made it clear that he ignores what I say when he wants something from me. Now, I don’t know if he is an actual murderer, and I sincerely hope he’s not. But he is certainly Schrödinger’s Murderer, and this particular Schrödinger’s Murderer has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a colored person who ignores a white person’s “NO” in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in other settings, as well.

So if you speak to a white who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps that white person's right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when they've tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps their right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override their rights.
For whites, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.

The fifth and last point: Don’t Murder. Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t kidnap. Don’t constrain. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence.

Shouldn’t this go without saying? Of course it should. Sadly, that’s not the world I live in. You may be beginning to realize that it’s not the world you live in, either.

Miss WhiteBread wishes you happiness and success in your search for non-colored friends.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

in the end, there can be only one

yes, the catchphrase to the Highlander film franchise. also, it's true about the sad circle jerk pretending to academic discourse on the atheism plus forum, titled "Examples of Intelligent/Well-Reasoned Arguments Against A+ ?", at which, as is the moderator's preference, there are no serious arguments, either for or against. in the end, however, like the catchphrase which titles this blog post, only one argument is actually necessary: atheism plus is a cult. period. end of story.

for many an atheist, the impetus for leaving an organized religion, is that the big three (judaism, christianity, and islam) are well organized and well funded cults. explain to me then, how it is that after liberating oneself from the mental shackles of organized religion, anyone would want to tie themselves to the impending train wreck begun by pz myers, rebecca watson, et.al.? nevermind, i've heard, over the course of the past year and a half, more horseshit masquerading as intelligence than in the previous 36 years of my life combined. i've no interest in hearing more at this point. let's take a good look at this, shall we?

1. at the heart of every religion there is a false narrative that serves to underpin and justify the immoral behavior adherents are about to tell you it KNOWS is ordained by some higher authority. for christianity, it's the story of jesus, for judaism it's the collection of false stories in the old testament. for islam it is the qu'ran. for atheism plus, it's the elevatorgate story (and i am not the only one to notice the conspicuous lack of substantiating evidence for rebecca watson's lie). conclusion: atheism plus is like a religion in that it is begun with a false narrative. if you'd  like to argue otherwise, bring evidence (not anecdotes) the watson story is true, otherwise don't let the door hit you on the way out.

2. the most vocal and well known proponents of atheism plus wish to be divisive, and much like the big three, offer up a "chosen people"-jews are the chosen of judaism, islam requires the death of 'infidels' (which both de facto and de jure selects then, the faithful), scientology has its 'clears', christianity goes with 'the baptized'. for atheism plus, it's women and white knights, or more appropriately, radfems (as far as 'otherizing' women, those who disagree with the tenets of radical feminism are chill girls, queen bees, gender traitors, and sister punishers, rape apologists, rapists, misogynists, trolls and so on).

3. a recent blog post by taslima nareen (and her subsequent comments below it) speculate that b/c scientists have found that mammalian reproduction can be limited to female dna, it would be 'fun' to try, in the context of making men, as part of the reproductive process, obsolete). a very famous secular religion,(nazism) tried the whole genocide thing a while back. Islam advocates that all infidels be killed. radical christian bible camps today are preparing their "warriors" (read: children), for a genocidal confrontation with radical muslims. in the bible, yahweh orders the genocide of many of the 'chosen people's' enemies,  including the akkadians, men might very well be the new Akkadians.

4. judaism prohibits writing the name of god. read the atheismplus forum rules.

5. religions rely on 'educating' the weak minded, and at the atheismplus forum, those with opinions that diverge from the approved ones, are directed to the 'education' forum. radical islamist terrorists like the plo fund madrassas, the catholics and evangelicals also have religion based schooling.

6. shunning: common practice among the amish and jehova's witnesses, is part and parcel with richard carrier's denunciation of "C.H.U.D.s" (statements which no ftb or skepchick blogger has bothered to repudiate), and pz has also championed this intolerant,  immoral behavior.

the fact is, atheismplus is a cult. complete in every way, including the built in ostracism of a "safe space" for its adherents--this is the digital age version of david koresh's hideaway camp.  the same as the bible camp depicted in the film of the same name. it is a place where the psychologically vulnerable are brought together, and told that the outside world is wrong about everything, and where the same insecurities that have brought them there are used to facilitate indoctrination techniques designed to further the aims of cult leaders, in this case, the plausibly megalomaniacal wishes of attention whores like rebecca watson, pzmyers, and ed brayton--failures all in previous professional endeavors, like many cult leaders.

Open Letter to Patheos

Dear Patheos:

In the past year  and some time, as I'm sure you're aware, there has been a growing rift in the atheist community between  a small contingent of radical feminist bloggers, primarily from Freethoughtblogs and Skepchick, and the greater atheist community, primarily because of the practice of this group of bloggers to attempt to silence dissent. It seems today that one of these bloggers (JT Eberhard) has made it onto Patheos (for what reason(s), I care not to speculate), and quite frankly, it seems a bit out of place, since Patheos to date has managed to keep itself out of this particular fray for the most part.

However, at the  present time, it seems that the good fortune to remain out of that fray has come to an end. It appears quite clear that Eberhard is busily positioning Patheos as a radical feminist outlet. Now, the coterie of bloggers and their followers to which I refer have established ground rules, not I, and I am well aware that you at Patheos haven't, either, which is to your credit, and is perhaps something which you might have some interest in addressing, given the fact that Eberhard's fellow bloggers have recently been taken to task for such egregious behavior as debating whether or not to pay one of their own bloggers money he was due; shaming, silencing, and attempting to intimidate bloggers and other members of the community for raising intellectual property questions (relating to the so-called Aplus Scribe project), as well as dismissing outright, some legitimate concerns that atheists who happen to also be activists for men's rights; among many other egregious examples of behavior evincing a lack of intellectual rigor (such as refusing to answer valid tweets/questions/video and blog responses), honesty, and acumen.

Now, lest I be accused of tarring and feathering Eberhard, or attempting to slime him through association, rest assured, that is neither my intent, nor is it my desired outcome in writing this letter. Moreover, I do not, and will not assert, that Eberhard has participated or endorses any of the aforementioned examples of rather unskeptical and unethical behavior. I did though, come across the enclosed screencap, which is what has aroused my concern presently, and I hope it will lead you, at Patheos, to perform your own investigation, with an eye toward addressing my (and other's) concerns that your site may eventually come to harbor this type of pernicious influence-if you find  my concerns baseless, fine. I would only ask of you the same I would ask of any atheist: do the homework, check the facts, and only then arrive at a conclusion, and based on the facts, rather than raw emotive content alone.

The reasons I am bringing this to your attention are many, and I'll address a few presently. One reason is the demise of the often enough mentioned phenomena of 'pharyngulation', wherein no less an atheist luminary than PZ Myers could, upon posting to his followers instructions to visit some hapless dissenter's blog or site, crash said site from the sheer volume of such visits, (this barely a year ago), contrasted with today, where even relatively unknown bloggers can weather such attacks with relative ease-which would seem to indicate a loss of popularity, and therefore traffic (this because I'm well aware of the need for site traffic and revenue, and not, as I'm sure some will inveigh, as a veiled threat, since I myself do not command, nor wish to, the ability to "pharyngulate" anyone's website, let alone Patheos, which I am quite fond of). In fact, I champion free speech as often as I champion atheism, and dislike the thought of censoring even unpalatable thoughts, ideas, and speech--which is another reason I'm writing to you now.

Other reasons include the possible alienation of a significant portion of the male demographic, which, if FTB bloggers are to be believed, represents a significant portion of the atheist community, and not merely a group of supposedly disgruntled, disaffected "men's rights activists" who also happen to be atheists--these men and women are atheists, too. These individuals, oft maligned as misogynists for raising what are, to their minds, valid concerns, have been vilified, 'dogpiled', maligned through association, and a great many more things--one instance in particular comes to mind: Greg Laden, late of Freethoughtblogs, actually, verifiably, threatened physical harm, and subsequently stalked in real life, one Abbie Smith--(though to their credit, Freethoughtblogs disavowed his actions and removed him from their lineup of bloggers). Still, even though Freethoughtblogs acted appropriately in the instant case, where does a man like Laden go? Without your having access to these relevant facts, perhaps Patheos? I would hope not, but again, such are my concerns, especially in light of the fact that at least one other FTB blogger has also been admonished for making veiled threats of violence, and at least one commenter has openly expressed the desire that another commenter "die burning in a fire (link-scroll to comment  #56)"--and hasn't been banned, though anyone expressing a legal concern, an objection, or any other of a number of innocuous comments has been attacked.

One last reason, and to my mind, perhaps  the most important, is reputation. Patheos has to date, served as a haven for atheists tired of the censorship, lack of accountability, and general atmosphere of sites like Skepchick and Freethoughtblogs. these sites have suffered from association with people like Rebecca Watson, "Surly" Amy Roth, and Jen Mccreight, among others, including Eberhard. Not only in real world terms of traffic, revenue, and the like (it's been reported that at the time of his ousting, thunderf00t was generating more income/traffic for Freethoughtblogs than the top ten next bloggers combined), but more importantly, in terms of reputation. I am not the only blogger/commentator who has arrived at the conclusion that these blogs have become infested with an agenda quite outside the purview of atheism qua atheism, or if you prefer, an agenda attached with 'spit and baling wire'--to wit, radical feminism--a dogmatic, quasi-religious movement that has never quite enjoyed the respect of its peers in the religious community.

I could deluge you with links to the on and offline behavior of more Atheism Plus adherents, but at present, I rely on your ability to investigate thoroughly for yourselves (which I know isn't always possible), and reiterate that Eberhard may not be involved in any of the aforementioned instances of harassment, bullying, lying, theft, and etc... I do, however, urge you to consider your position on the usefulness of a blogger that carries with him as much baggage as Eberhard does--even if it isn't baggage of his own. Also, I would remind you that though not rational, guilt by association is a major reason sites lose followers.


Friday, September 28, 2012

sigh....they never learn: a response to one joe 'snarky finger' mcken

dear white knight (joe mcken):

if my 'drivel' is so 'silly', it should be no problem for you to bring some whup ass, right? don't pretend you're even remotely important enough to 'consider addressing your [my] nonsense'--tell the  truth,  you can't, b/c you're not remotely educated enough on any of the tangential subjects required,  let alone anything remotely resembling the subjects of ethics or humanism- each and every one of you lot i've ever encountered relies on people  being ignorant, and easily cowered by $2 words. i've got more of those than you, and you dropping them doesn't phase me--especially since you can't come to grips with a 7th grade word (equality).

as far as "addressing the subject of your post", which straw man would you like me to set alight first?" to be honest, i thought your post beneath contempt, and certainly not serious philosophical inquiry, since it's really, vacuous semantic mental masturbation on your part. i assumed you were clearing your throat, so to speak.

as i said, it should be quite simple for someone as obviously erudite as yourself to dissect what i said. right? i mean, you can, right?

so, ultimately, man-child, post me, don't post me, respond, don't respond, i've got my own blog for that, but when you go to sleep at night, think quietly to yourself: "there is one Man out there who has my measure, who knows who and what  i am, and i've been found wanting."

Dear Chubby, Itchy Snark Finger*

" I’ve still yet to receive a halfway decent explanation for why women’s physiological or behavioral makeup somehow excuses the professional, economic, legal and societal disadvantages...."

could you tell me where it is (in the western world) that there's a law citing a woman's physiological or behavioral makeup' to justify inequality? um...and not to be a dick, but  could you keep your response to somewhere during your own lifetime  or at least the past 50 years? since you're talking about how women 'continue to  face' this?

also, while we're at it, could you explain to me why it's not ok for a father to visit their children, even though they have to pay child support? like in England. or why it's ok for a woman to hit a man, cops watching, and not be arrested, but the opposite isn't true? (look on youtube, there are a disturbing number of examples).

Oh, i'd also like to know why it is that my tax dollars can fund refuges for female victims of domestic violence but not male victims of domestic violence.

and uh...just so this isn't a 'gotcha' question(s):  i'm not an MRA, i've never been divorced, married once, and happily, have 4 beautiful kids, and i grew up in a single parent household, where mom was (and is)  tough enough to raise 4 boys on her own-none of whom are rapists or criminals of any sort, and are generally well adjusted people. oh, and we grew up in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, as Hispanics in NYC, so your 'he's male therefore privileged' stuff doesn't apply-that 'argument' is a non-starter, both for being over-broad, and for its inability to explain how so many men are not recipients of anything good from the  'patriarchy', oh, and b/c so many men's lives are both factually and emotionally worse than those of privileged whites, especially privileged white women.

damn...i took away all the feminist 'you're wrong' buttons, didn't I? nevermind. i'm just venting because i hate stupid, privileged, indoctrinated people.

oh, i'm impressed by how you identify strawmen, then go straight into ad-hominems....oh, wait...that  was you, wasn't it? sorry....

"It’s honestly difficult to tell, though I’m not sure the difference really matters; either way, they’re still blithering idiots who can’t recognize reality when it smacks them on the nose."

honestly though, you're awesome! when i get  a lobotomy, i want it to be just like yours!

oh...one more thing: how did you manage to overcome both your inherent white privilege, and your oh, so blatantly clear narcissism?

*read joe mcken's bio:  (he skips the 'rabid narcissist' part)