Atheists and White Supremacists

[Nephew Twiddleton]

On the other hand, P3nt went through GREAT LENGTHS to make it clear he wasn't trying to target everyone with beliefs when he talked about Faithfools.

Its still not okay. That's all there is to it, as far as I can tell.

Did he? Ill have to reread the thread then. I seem to remember it ending with the sentiment that while religion is retarded he can see why it might be unfair to make fun of religious people because they were probably born into their flavor of delusion and never bothered to question it.

Would you please link to it when you find it? Because if it was that, he's pretty much saying that people like MLK and Gandhi were retarded. I need to see exactly WTF he said before shooting my mouth off. Thanks.

Itll have to wait about six hours. I could also be remembering wrong or bounced out of the convo before further clarification.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

HELLO?  WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?

Well, I can't talk for anyone else, but I sure know I'm not going to sit here and keep doing whatever the fuck this is.

Maybe I'll go get a beer or something.

I see.  When it's a woman talking, everyone lines up for a slap.

When it's a guy, everyone has better things to do.

How very fucking fascinating.

Yep.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm reading this thread but I'm having a hard time figuring it out.

Nigel came on and was NIGEL.  In front of people who have penises.  And when they pointed out that their big red asses were getting MORE inflamed, she still NIGELED.  And so their asses reached flash point and everything's on fire.  Everyone is SO FUCKING ANGRY that they can't find their penis.  And that's Goddamn unacceptable.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I'm reading this thread but I'm having a hard time figuring it out.

This works as a recap:

I don't have time to catch up on this thread this morning because I have a paper due, but I'm disappointed. The number of people who reacted with "FUCK OFF I DON'T RESPECT YOU ANYMORE" is disheartening. People I thought were intelligent are reacting with outright HATE because I suggested that identifying with a group that is defined by what it is not reflects insecurity.

Of course, that hate also reflects insecurity, which really just reinforces my point.

As for the images that are created by assholes, one of the things I tried to point out is the distinct LACK of outrage from the "atheist community" about them. In some cases, failing to reject something is tantamount to condoning it, and I see a lot of condoning.

As for the "I don't mean you" disclaimers, it's increasingly clear that I DO mean you, whichever OUTRAGED person you are who is just ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS that I dared imply that you're insecure.

Your outrage is a brilliant shining indicator of your insecurity.

There are better, brighter, and more interesting things about you than your belief that there's no God, or your membership in the club that gloats over those who don't share it. If you are reacting with outrage over the premise that people who identify as Atheists are insecure, you might want to re-evaluate what's really important to you about who you are.

[LMNO]

This thread still confuses me.

[Ben Shapiro]

Ah OK. How dare you Nigel me we're friends! I have you on a pedestal.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I'm reading this thread but I'm having a hard time figuring it out.

Nigel came on and was NIGEL.  In front of people who have penises.  And when they pointed out that their big red asses were getting MORE inflamed, she still NIGELED.  And so their asses reached flash point and everything's on fire.  Everyone is SO FUCKING ANGRY that they can't find their penis.  And that's Goddamn unacceptable.

Also a recap. Uppity woman, etc.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This thread still confuses me.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,28577.msg1136555.html#msg1136555

ALL IS EXPLAINED.

[Demolition Squid]

HELLO?  WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?

Well, I can't talk for anyone else, but I sure know I'm not going to sit here and keep doing whatever the fuck this is.

Maybe I'll go get a beer or something.

I see.  When it's a woman talking, everyone lines up for a slap.

When it's a guy, everyone has better things to do.

How very fucking fascinating.

Okay, that one made me flinch for real. Nice.

I've said my piece. You haven't, actually, said where you disagree with my issue (which is, to reiterate, that there is no practical difference between what Nigel has been saying 'atheists are the same as white supremacists' and what P3nt said).

And as far as I've been able to make out, getting offended by this and saying that actually, no, continuing to say the same thing doesn't make it more acceptable just because you know that you don't mean the right sort of those people make me exactly the sort of person she was hoping to offend.

Please. If you want to line up and say that, I'll be just as pissed at you. Then everyone wins, I guess. Otherwise, please point out where I'm wrong. Nothing Nigel has said has led me to believe I'm misinterpreting her; if I am, I'd really like to be wrong. So far, the best defense has been Telarus saying 'shouldn't we take the most charitable interpretation of the argument?' And my gut is - no. Lets take the version of the argument that has actually been put in front of us, and if that isn't what is meant, the person making the argument can clarify. There has been no such clarification that I've seen.

So yeah. Have at.

I'm going to go for a walk, first, though. Its a nice evening and I haven't seen the other end of the village in a while. I should be back in an hour or so to continue.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

EITHER

       This is a demonstration of the utter failure of Discordianism

OR

       This is a demonstration of the final triumph of Discordianism.


Which is another way of saying, "everyone loves the golden apple that isn't aimed at them".

If you know what I'm saying.

And I think you do.

[Ben Shapiro]

EITHER

       This is a demonstration of the utter failure of Discordianism

OR

       This is a demonstration of the final triumph of Discordianism.


Which is another way of saying, "everyone loves the golden apple that isn't aimed at them".

If you know what I'm saying.

And I think you do.

I see it. I don't care I was told I could have a good time here. I regret NOTHING.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

HELLO?  WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?

Well, I can't talk for anyone else, but I sure know I'm not going to sit here and keep doing whatever the fuck this is.

Maybe I'll go get a beer or something.

I see.  When it's a woman talking, everyone lines up for a slap.

When it's a guy, everyone has better things to do.

How very fucking fascinating.

Okay, that one made me flinch for real. Nice.

I've said my piece. You haven't, actually, said where you disagree with my issue (which is, to reiterate, that there is no practical difference between what Nigel has been saying 'atheists are the same as white supremacists' and what P3nt said).

And as far as I've been able to make out, getting offended by this and saying that actually, no, continuing to say the same thing doesn't make it more acceptable just because you know that you don't mean the right sort of those people make me exactly the sort of person she was hoping to offend.

Please. If you want to line up and say that, I'll be just as pissed at you. Then everyone wins, I guess. Otherwise, please point out where I'm wrong. Nothing Nigel has said has led me to believe I'm misinterpreting her; if I am, I'd really like to be wrong. So far, the best defense has been Telarus saying 'shouldn't we take the most charitable interpretation of the argument?' And my gut is - no. Lets take the version of the argument that has actually been put in front of us, and if that isn't what is meant, the person making the argument can clarify. There has been no such clarification that I've seen.

So yeah. Have at.

I'm going to go for a walk, first, though. Its a nice evening and I haven't seen the other end of the village in a while. I should be back in an hour or so to continue.

You weren't listening.  I wasn't making an argument to convince anyone of anything.  Hell, you're one of the THREE (3) people that had the STONES to bitch in that other thread.

No.  I am making an argument for its own sake.  I am giving you what you and everyone else wanted.  You didn't want writing.  You didn't want debate.  You didn't want to relax now that there's no RWHN threads stinking the place up.

You wanted to hate, and to do it with righteousness on your side.

Well, here I am.  Start hating.

This is the sort of thing that we Holy Men™ DO for You People.  It's right in the job description.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Honestly, this whole "if you ever finish the sentence 'I am a ...,' you're a bad person or insecure," thing is just not true. I am an atheist. If you ask me what religion I am, I will say, "none, I'm an atheist." I am not defining myself by my lack of belief, I am stating a fact. There is a reason the word "atheist" exists. Sure, we could all just hold hands and imagine there are no differences between us really and pretend labels are all needlessly limiting and ultimately meaningless, but that would be really lame, so no thanks. I like the fact that I differ from the majority on this point. I am not apologetic for it, and it doesn't make me "insecure" to say it.

As for the argument itself, demanding that you are right, and pretending that all disagreement with your point amounts to further evidence that you are right, is ridiculous. You can say "if you identify with a label then you are insecure because you'd have no identity without the label" all you want, but it doesn't mean it's true. Say that to anyone with an identity that has a word, and see how fucking far it gets you. Go ahead, walk up to a feminist and say "well, you're not really a feminist because you're not an asshole" and see what happens. Walk up to a black man and tell him "You're black, but you're not a nigger" and gaze in slackjawed wonder when it goes over like a lead balloon.

Identities have labels. Subscribing to them does not make you insecure. Being insecure makes you insecure, and sometimes subscribing to a label is indicative of insecurity, but the mere act of having a label and owning it an saying "fuck yeah, that's who I am" is not, in itself, inherently, an insecure act. It is a way to explain to people "When you categorize me, put me in this category on this subject, because you're going to categorize me anyway and your assumptions about that category are close enough to the truth to work in this situation, at least for now." It's a shortcut from "You know nothing about me" to "You know slightly more than nothing about me," which is useful because we don't all have 8 hours to delve into the mysteries of the universe with every person we meet.

How many people here call themselves Discordians? If you do, are you insecure simply because you identify with that label? Or is it just something that's useful in some cases to convey some amount of information? What's the difference?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I am a JACKASS.

I do not feel insecure.

Now, look at that.  I have argued against Nigel's point, yet I have not told her what a BAD PERSON she is, and how I CAN'T EVER RESPECT HER AGAIN, because YEARS OF FRIENDSHIP AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE do not stack up against ONE THING THAT IRRITATED MY JOHNSON.

I am doing it wrong. 

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

Here's what I've got :

So initially Nigel made a sweeping generalization about atheists and this was upsetting because it has been established that sweeping generalizations are bad.

People took offense to being lumped together with others with similar beliefs who abuse that belief in the name of smugness and idiocy as a mask for insecurity.

Instead of adhering to the pre-established agreement that sweeping generalizations are bad, Nigel appeared to double-down.

Now instead of examining Nigel's statements and their own responses, there is much flailing and rending of garments.

So was it actually a sweeping generalization?

Is it a sweeping generalization worth tons of butthurt if other sweeping generalizations regarding people with the opposite-ish belief structures are mocked freely?

Where is the separation between butthurt and critical thought?

When should someone rephrase what they're saying to better present an idea?

When should someone rethink their emotional response before typing?

At what temperature does butthurt taffy melt into frothy rage soup?



These questions and more are brought to your attention in today's episode of "As PD Burns". Stay tuned for a message from our sponsor, "Jimmy Walnut's Nut-Crackers! Now with more screaming!"