Atheists and White Supremacists

[Pæs]

I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.

I missed that. I think I saw a reference to it, which I now understand, but I missed the thing itself. That's stupid.

[Demolition Squid]

So what we've learned from this thread is that if you knowingly attack a label that people tend to think of themselves as, because some of the people who adhere to that label (and I dispute that it is the majority, and would love to hear any evidence to the contrary) people get pissed off.

FFS Nigel, this isn't 'enlightening', this isn't surprising in the least. This is you being massively insensitive for no good reason.

You're also failing to address about half the points that get raised, and cackling in a superior manner about how obviously, because you've upset a bunch of people, they're too dumb to reevaluate their worldview.

Congratulations. You've gone full RWHN.

[Lord Cataplanga]

Relevant lesswrong article about something that I think Nigel was trying to say:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/

Relevant quotes:

But there would also be a simpler explanation for my views, a less rare factor that could explain it:  I could just be anti-non-mainstream.  I could be in the habit of hanging out in moderately educated circles, and know that astrology and homeopathy are not accepted beliefs of my tribe.  Or just perceptually recognize them, on a wordless level, as "sounding weird".  And I could mock anything that sounds weird and that my fellow tribesfolk don't believe, much as creationists who hang out with fellow creationists mock evolution for its ludicrous assertion that apes give birth to human beings.

You can get cheap credit for rationality by mocking wrong beliefs that everyone in your social circle already believes to be wrong.  It wouldn't mean that I have any ability at all to notice a wrong belief that the people around me believe to be right, or vice versa - to further discriminate truth from falsity, beyond the fact that my social circle doesn't already believe in something.

Back in the good old days, there was a simple test for this syndrome that would get quite a lot of mileage:  You could just ask me what I thought about God.  If I treated the idea with deeper respect than I treated astrology, holding it worthy of serious debate even if I said I disbelieved in it, then you knew that I was taking my cues from my social surroundings - that if the people around me treated a belief as high-prestige, high-status, I wouldn't start mocking it no matter what the state of evidence.

This right here could be the origin of that attitude some atheists have that makes them think they are more intelligent than other people just becuase they have one fewer stupid belief. That might have made sense in the past: for example, Hume's skepticism really is quite admirable, considering it was before Darwin's time. Nowadays, not so much.

Another interesting aspect of that article (it's worth reading it in full) is that it sounds so much more convincing when Eleizer says it than when Nigel says something similar. This has been bothering me all day, becuase it could mean that:

a) I consider white, male, non-threatening, certified capital A Atheist Yudkovsky to be more convincing, because he is a member of My Tribe®, or

b) Eleizer is just a better writer, and he knows better than to mind-kill his entire target audience by referencing politics, religion and race in such a manner right in the thread title.

[East Coast Hustle]

So what we've learned from this thread is that if you knowingly attack a label that people tend to think of themselves as, because some of the people who adhere to that label (and I dispute that it is the majority, and would love to hear any evidence to the contrary) people get pissed off.

FFS Nigel, this isn't 'enlightening', this isn't surprising in the least. This is you being massively insensitive for no good reason.

You're also failing to address about half the points that get raised, and cackling in a superior manner about how obviously, because you've upset a bunch of people, they're too dumb to reevaluate their worldview.

Congratulations. You've gone full RWHN.

Woah there, man. I think the RWHN comment is out of line.

I think it's more a case of what we all need to hear sometimes:

Nigel, if everyone is taking what you said the wrong way or not getting what you meant, it's likely that there's an inherent flaw in your message. In this case, it's abrasive language that people who are uninvolved in whatever controversy you're riffing on here are taking as incredibly insensitive (at best) or pretty damn dickish (at worst).

FWIW, I have no dogs in this fight and could give less than two shits about my own lack of belief in deities or anybody else's religious beliefs - it's just not a subject I even care about a tiny bit - and it appears to me that whatever line of reasoning you thought you had going here does not stand up to scrutiny. And that's OK.

(edited to clarify which parts of the post were addressed to which posters)

[Ben Shapiro]

All I keep thinking about in this thread is the one bit roger made about latching on to labels from years ago. If you call yourself a label (atheist) you might as well drag your knuckles around. If you call yourself a human being with values (atheist beliefs) congrats on being a bi-ped.

[Demolition Squid]

Maybe the RWHN comment is premature. Nigel hasn't started dragging this into other threads yet.

But as much as it is clear that Nigel is aiming at 'extremist atheists', what she's actually hitting is all atheists - whether that's a big part of your personality or just something you happen to believe. Because that's the language that she's using, regardless of intent, and she's determined to dig her heels in because... 

Well what I'm mostly getting from the tone is that she doesn't think much of us 'boys' as the primary reason.

[Pæs]

Everyone in this thread is a butt.

[Lord Cataplanga]

Maybe the RWHN comment is premature. Nigel hasn't started dragging this into other threads yet.

But as much as it is clear that Nigel is aiming at 'extremist atheists', what she's actually hitting is all atheists - whether that's a big part of your personality or just something you happen to believe. Because that's the language that she's using, regardless of intent, and she's determined to dig her heels in because... 

Well what I'm mostly getting from the tone is that she doesn't think much of us 'boys' as the primary reason.

Does it really matter? We should maybe just address the arguments as we can most charitably interpret them instead of personally insulting the argumenter.

Everyone in this thread is a butt.

Stop generalizing, asshole! 
You hurt my feelings... 

Anyway, back to business...

Something interesting that is relevant to Nigel's argument, as I understand it

[Junkenstein]

I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.

I can't say that I was, then again I can't recall offhand the thread. P3nt said something, you disagreed and I thought it was generally determined as not exactly helping discourse.

I've re-typed the above a few times because I'm still trying to work out what the fuck has gone on here.

Not sure myself.  From what I gather, it's okay to broad-brush non-atheists, but not to do it to atheists.

Either that, or Twid and I personally can be shat on, but not anyone else.

I mean, I have in the past couple of days, had people REPEATEDLY IGNORE what the fuck I was saying about faith vs rationalism, so they could post GIGANTIC STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS that look like they were more or less fucking cut and pasted from Dawkins or whoever the flavor of the fucking month is.  I have been the recipient of slurs.  ONE person spoke up for me.  ONE FUCKING PERSON.

So, beyond being less than outraged by Nigel's statement, I am in fact more than a little pissed off by the outrage at her statement, because it's SELECTIVE AS FUCKING HELL.

Right, I think I've started to see what's going on.

Nigel's trolling and got the exact expected reaction. I had assumed (most) posters had already played out the atheistVSgod argument enough time to be fairly certain in their (non) beliefs.

Which is pretty much what it always comes down to and back to. Beliefs and labels. You can recite the arguments each way. We ALL can. Sooner or later you pick your stance and get nice and comfy. Actual atheism is literally as important as you make it. If you're constantly running around shouting about space teapots, then good for you. Don't be surprised when you're not at any parties, just like the guy who only talk about X.

There's some kind of lesson here, but I'm no teacher.

5 new replies? Dontgiveafuck.gif

Trolling? You could call it that, I guess. If you wanna also call my previous threads on race and privilege "trolling" you could go there too if you really want to.

Hoping to elicit emotion followed by discomfort followed by dialogue, is more like it.

This is NOT an atheistVSgod thread, and if you think it is you are completely missing the point.

Did you see the bold? Because reading the rest of the thread it's looks like I'm on the money. I never said it was an AVG thread, I said specifically that we surely have all done that. I was thinking what you were trying to talk about was the privilege/mindset that some atheists display, but apparently all of them do this.

It would be nice to see some kind of acknowledgement that Cain and others are not white supremacists though.

[LMNO]

I might throw out there that atheism as a state of identity is itself a uniform that can only be worn in a state of privilege.

I notice that I am confused by this.

The first half of the sentence appears to me to be focused around "a state of identity is itself a uniform".  That is something I can agree with, regardless of what that state of identity may be.  It appears to reflect the BIP. "I AM" is a limiting statement.  It reduces the possibilities of self.  In this instance, I do not see the word "uniform" as a pejorative, in the same way "prison cell" is not a pejorative in terms of the BIP.

I feel the confusing part is where it appears that any self-identity of a belief of no gods comes from a state of privilege.  I am unable to grasp what that means in terms of how we've been using the word "privilege" on these boards.

More importantly, it also seems to indicate that all those without privilege must believe in a god of some sort, by definition.  Which feels very, very odd to me.

No, wait, that's not precise.

It seems to indicate all those without privilege cannot include a disbelief in a god as part of their identity.  Damn, that's three negatives in one sentence.

Doesn't that make it sound like Theism is some sort of default, natural state?

Nope, still confused.  I'll try again later.

[hooplala]

I might throw out there that atheism as a state of identity is itself a uniform that can only be worn in a state of privilege.

I notice that I am confused by this.

The first half of the sentence appears to me to be focused around "a state of identity is itself a uniform".  That is something I can agree with, regardless of what that state of identity may be.  It appears to reflect the BIP. "I AM" is a limiting statement.  It reduces the possibilities of self.  In this instance, I do not see the word "uniform" as a pejorative, in the same way "prison cell" is not a pejorative in terms of the BIP.

I feel the confusing part is where it appears that any self-identity of a belief of no gods comes from a state of privilege.  I am unable to grasp what that means in terms of how we've been using the word "privilege" on these boards.

More importantly, it also seems to indicate that all those without privilege must believe in a god of some sort, by definition.  Which feels very, very odd to me.

No, wait, that's not precise.

It seems to indicate all those without privilege cannot include a disbelief in a god as part of their identity.  Damn, that's three negatives in one sentence.

Doesn't that make it sound like Theism is some sort of default, natural state?

Nope, still confused.  I'll try again later.

I have no idea what Nigel's intentions were with that statement, but to me it pointed toward the rest of the world. It's all fine and dandy to mock the atheists here in North America, since we have it pretty good... But try being an out atheist in somewhere like the Middle East, and see where it gets you. To save on precious anticipation, the short answer in a lot of places is death.

So, I suppose she's right that I do speak from a place of privilege to be able to say I don't believe in gods, but it makes me pretty fucking angry that that is the case.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Still kinda sick and dumb, but I'm going to take a stab at this anyway.

Being an atheist is no more a state of privilege than being gay is. It is a thing that in some places will get you killed. It is a thing that in the US will prevent you from entering certain professions and public offices, and in many parts of the country results in being partially or wholly ostracized, or makes you subject to people attempting to "cure" you. Like being gay, you can hide it if you so choose. Like being gay, you shouldn't fucking have to hide it any you shouldn't be discriminated against because of it, but that still happens.

My dad came out of the atheist closet as my mother was dying. I had no idea he and my mom were atheists at that point. They were Catholics when I was little, and slowly moved away from the church. Up until just a few years ago, they were still trying to find a church that they could be a part of, and would talk about it at family gatherings. Both came from very Catholic families. We had to bring in a priest to do last rites for my atheist mother because her siblings were there and they didn't know, and we didn't want to upset them. We had her memorial service in a Catholic church, so they could get something out of it. We were terrified that they were going to try to interfere with donating her body to a medical school for bullshit religious reasons.

That is not what privilege looks like.

[Golden Applesauce]

I am going to boil this down a little more for Vex, who seems to be willfully avoiding my point: If you identify as an Atheist, yes, I DO think that YOU PERSONALLY are pretty insecure about yourself. Since you seemed to imagine that I was somehow excepting people I know.

Doesn't accepting a label for yourself usually mean that you are comfortable and secure in that aspect of yourself?

"I'm not queer, the devil just tempts me with fantasies of cock and I wish I were brave enough to either wear this bra outside my bedroom or get rid of the damned thing." vs "I am a Big Gay Cowboy and on special occasions I like to wear frilly corsets."

"I'm a Christian, but I invoke him as Baldur in my rituals because that's what he was originally called before the Jews stole Norse mythology and repurposed him to infiltrate the Roman Empire." vs "I am a Pagan and I prefer to live in the reality of my choosing."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I would like everyone to go down to Or Kill Me, and read Kai's essay on arguing like a German.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Maybe the RWHN comment is premature.

It was certainly designed - perhaps unintentionally - to ensure that no communication occurred.

Just saying.