1. richard carrier: so batshit crazy i'm just going to link to his ramblings so you can judge for yourself:
(a) (Not) Our Kind of People
(b) The New Atheism +
i especially want you to notice the first one, and if you know a therapist or something, ask them their opinion of the mind that can write that. drop me a line if you do, i'm seriously fascinated by this level of crazy.
2. ed brayton (on whether or not he should pay thunderf00t the money owed to him; i don't care who's side you're on in this little drama, i can only assume that if you're not a complete lying asshole, you'd pay the man his money-otherwise, it'd be what i like to call 'stealing'.):
“I haven’t even given any thought to the point at which I would stop paying him. The blog was killed on July 1. I could call that the end or pay him for hits in July, which were not unsubstantial. Or at this point I could just tell him to go fuck himself.”3. greta christina (aka blag hag): read her dogshit here and here (just don't stare at her old lady tits, even if she waves them in your face, like she did at boobquake, or you're automatically out of the White Woman of Privilege Club/ the A+ Club)
"I don’t feel safe as a woman in this community – and I feel less safe than I do as a woman in science, or a woman in gaming, or hell, as a woman walking down the fucking sidewalk." (seriously? try being brown, atheist, and wearing a goatee in NYC, you privileged white bitch)
"I now realize I was never truly welcome in this movement" --(that's because we don't like crazies, dumbass)
"I was once considered an up-and-coming student leader, but now I’m accused of destroying the movement. Well, that last bit is partially true." (why are you complaining about something you freely admit to, and in the same sentence? i'm no psychoanalyst, but it seems rather convenient that even when you're doing something you admit you're doing, and want to do, you're still a victim. just 'sayin')
"I want Deep Rifts. I want to be able to truthfully say that I feel safe in this movement"4. ashley miller: read her clueless meanderings on what misogyny is here.
"I don’t, however, think that calling the pattern of behavior I’ve described here “misogyny” is a distortion. At least, it’s no more a distortion than applying any other label is. Underneath it all, there are some troubling attitudes toward women, even if we have to dig a bit to get there." (my emphasis, if the label doesn't matter, would you object to being labeled a misandrist piece of shit? how about 'intolerant demagogue'? 'waste of space'? 'dumb as dogshit'? or how about rationalizing shit for brains?, i mean, if you have to 'dig a bit to get there', aren't you admitting you have to lawyer your way to calling this person a misogynist? aren't you admitting that he isn't one until you rifle through the entirety of your rationalizations before you can cleanly (hardly) call this person a misogynist?) oh...just one more thing, asshat:: if, as you say, labels don't matter, can we just call you a misandryst? wait, i like the ring of 'radfem'. is that still 'no more of a distortion'? i mean, like i said, it just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? 'radfem'. yeah. we can run with that.
5. ophelia benson:
i'm not going to get into the privilege, lack of empathy, and outright narcissism it takes to tell other people they have to be willing to acquiesce indiscriminately to what other people want. that would be piling on, and i trust you can see how ironic the feminist canard about 'equality' is.
One (I didn’t go into this in yesterday’s post) – a skeptic who leans very liberal (in the sense of free-to-X) on sexual issues and very libertarian on rules and codes can seem to be bordering on misogynist, or if not misogynist at least rudely indifferent to what other people want, which, when the other people in question are women, is hard to distinguish from sexism (if not misogyny).(the underscore is mine)
so...'bordering on misogyny' is misogyny? and 'rudely indifferent to what other people want' is sexism/misogyny? ok i get it. either you're with us, or you're against us....which is what dogmatically indoctrinated ideological zealots say...well, and now feminists. more to the point, these things are distinct phenomena, and you're blaming others for your own lack of intelligence and discernment. AWESOME. truly a magnificent example of stupidity.
now, for you normal people, before you say "so what?", lemme focus your view a little here, and quote carrier directly:
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. (carrier's emphasis)
now, the upshot of all this bullshit is this:
- if you aren't with these people, you're against them, which is a hallmark of organized religion, and political crazies like george bush.
- if you merely ask for the evidence to support the assertion that sexual harassment is rife within the atheist community, you are publicly humiliated and/or insulted (which carrier, et.al. say they're against)
- the three "values" carrier completely mangles are what we like to call one of two things: (a) dogma, or (b) things no sane person disagrees with any fucking way
- richard carrier is what MRAs call a 'white knight'--basically, a white privileged asshole feeling guilty for being one, and who postrates himself at the feet of those he feels he's wronged--seriously how does someone with a phd from columbia not get a fucking job? i started as an adjunct lecturer with barely six graduate credits to my name...but then, maybe i just got some special word nerd mojo? (far as i know, that'd be the only kind of mojo i've got though)
- greta christina (and i can only presume many or most of the other vile little shits forming this faction) wants to divide us...over sexual harassment policies that already existed before they began talking all this shit
- feminists want a second bite at the apple, since abjectly failing to enforce the unequal form of matriarchy they wanted to impose on people during the height of second and third wave feminism, and they're willing to destroy the only community audacious enough, and capable enough to take a stand against the tyranny of religion, no matter the cost.
- despite the acknowledged fact that religion is the root cause of most societal ills, these FT Batheists insist on treating the symptom rather than the disease: men, misogynists all, must acquiesce to their demands of unequal 'equality', before we can proceed to relegating religion to a quaint pastime.
PPS: is it any wonder that domain names that are variants of 'atheist plus' have already been snapped up?
PPS: i have a lack of trust in the 19th of august...