Category: Notes and Comment Blog

  • Dunning-Kruger morality

    It’s the turn of “Ardent Atheist” Emery Emery to try to peddle the line that all this talk of sexual harassment is actually a campaign to stop everyone having sex. It’s a campaign to shut down pleasure and fun and joy and good things altogether.

    The in-groupers at FtB have been attempting to redefine flirting as sexual harassment and sexual intercourse as rape. The problem with this tactic is that it obfuscates actual acts of sexual predation while criminalizing very healthy sex-positive human interaction.

    No actually we have not. Not at all. We’ve been attempting (as have many others – we sure as hell don’t deserve all the credit for this) to define sexual harassment as sexual harassment. Flirting is mutual; harassment is unilateral. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to sexual intercourse and rape.

    We are not opposed to healthy sex-positive human interaction. That’s an idiotic thing to say – but of course it’s also a very familiar trope about feminists and feminism. DJ Grothe and Emery Emery and the rest of them are reaching into a particularly foul box of tools for this particular trope. It ought to be beneath them, and it says a lot about this haha “community” that it isn’t.

    Adults choosing to be sexual with each other is beautiful. and we in the atheist/skeptic community are by and large, not weighed down by sexual hangups. We tend to be not only sex positive but also highly honest and moral people.

    Oh dear god. That last sentence froze me in place for a second when I read it – from a capital S Skeptic!!

    No. No, you don’t; no, we don’t. We don’t tend to be highly honest and moral people. I’ve never thought that about any set of people, because it’s just a ludicrous claim, about anyone; but in addition I’ve been learning to think it’s less and less true of people in “the atheist/skeptic community” over the past couple of years. That “community” is riddled with malice and aggression and tribal dudely misogynist bullshit. EE’s post is a classic example of that.

    This insidious attempt to malign the fine people who frequent skeptic/atheist conventions as white, male dominated communities who both prey on women and work tirelessly to protect this so-called culture of rape we’ve been accused of building, must stop!

    Not all of the people who “frequent skeptic/atheist conventions” are fine people. Why would they be? People are people. We’ve all got faults, and many of us have the kinds of faults that can inflict misery on other people. It’s not in any way extraordinary for people to be selfish or greedy or sexually predatory, or all those at once. Some people like that frequent skeptic/atheist conventions. Shocker! Not. And saying that doesn’t equate to saying all such conventions are “white, male dominated communities who both prey on women and work tirelessly to protect this so-called culture of rape.” That’s not what’s going on here.

    The A+ folks have demanded that convention organizers add to their harassment policies, that no speaker be allowed to engage in sexual contact with any convention attendees. The attempt to instate such an insidiously over reaching rule speaks volumes to the mind set of these people.

    I don’t know what he means by “the A+ folks” there. That is a label of course that is pervasively misused to name people who have nothing to do with “A+” apart from agreement with the claim that atheism by itself is not enough to make “highly honest and moral people.” If that’s what he means by it, then his claim is a ridiculous lie. Nobody I know or know of has demanded any such thing.

    As this drama unfolded I found myself becoming more and more afraid to speak my mind and share my thoughts. And as I pondered whether or not I should say anything about this new development I realized something quite horrific. The only people who have frightened me into silence prior to this moment have been extremist Muslims. Think about that. The tactics of the FtB in-groupers have had on many in my community the exact same effect as the tactics of Muslim extremists. Ask yourself, “have I been frightened into silence?”. If the answer is yes please, speak up.

    I’ll tell you what’s “horrific” about that. It’s the malicious dishonesty of it. It’s the grotesque insinuation that he’s afraid of being killed by “the FtB in-groupers.” People like us – people in our oh so honest and moral “community” – are afraid of violent Islamists because violent Islamists kill people they dislike. We don’t do that.

    Moral and honest. No, I don’t think so.

  • The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain needs your help

    Maryam Namazie writes:

    PROTECT NAHLA MAHMOUD

    Following her interview on Channel 4 on Sharia law, Islamists have threatened Sudanese secular campaigner and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) Co-Spokesperson Nahla Mahmoud with death, calling her a ‘Kafira’ and ‘Murtada’ who has offended Islam and brought “fitnah”. The threats have been reported to the police who have advised that nothing can be done about the particular threats made by Salah al Bandar who has until recently been a Lib Dem Councillor. The police have even urged Nahla not to “anger” him further.

    Hundreds of individuals and groups have already signed on to an open letter calling for the authorities to take action. You (and/or your organisation) can read more about the specific threats made and sign the open letter here.

    After receiving a number of complaints from CEMB supporters, Spencer Hagard, Chair of the Cambridge Liberal Democrats, has written to al Bandar seeking an urgent response from him. Pending the outcome of his enquiry, the link between al Bandar’s webpage and the Cambridge Liberal Democrats website has been temporarily discontinued.

    The Lawyers Secular Society is providing support and looking into various options available to address the matter.

    Clearly, everyone has a right to religion or atheism without fear and intimidation. This is something al Bander and his Islamist friends need to learn.

    EVENTS

    14 September Rally and March for Secularism

    Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain is endorsing the Central London Humanist Group’s Secular Europe March and Rally on Saturday 14th September 2013.

    We will assemble at 12.30pm in Temple Place, next to Temple Tube Station; the March will start at 1.00pm and end in a Rally at Richmond Terrace, opposite Downing Street at around 2pm.

    Confirmed speakers include Sue Cox (Survivors Voice), Charlie Klendjian (Lawyers Secular Society), Rory Fenton (AHS President), Philosopher AC Grayling, Adam Knowles (Chair of GALHA – LGBT Humanists), Philosopher Stephen Law, Houzan Mahmoud (Organisation for Iraqi Women’s Freedom), Nahla Mahmoud (Council of Ex Muslims of Britain), Maryam Namazie (Fitnah, CEMB and One Law for All), Pragna Patel (Southall Black Sisters), Naomi Phillips (Chair of Labour Humanists), Nina Sankari (Polish Rationalist Association) and Anne Marie Waters (One Law for All) amongst others.

    More information available here: Join event page on Facebook and Event page on Meetup. We will be using the hashtag #SECM2013.

    Other events

    In the upcoming months, there will be evening drinks in London with philosopher Arif Ahmed and a meet-up of apostate asylum seekers and refugees on 19 September; lunch in Manchester on 24 August and Birmingham on 7 September organised by the Northern Ex-Muslim Meetup Group and the CEMB’s Annual General Meeting on 12 October 2013 in London.

    Maryam Namazie and Nahla Mahmoud will also be speaking in Marseilles, Boston, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Nottingham, and Brighton in the coming months. More details can be found here.

    CEMB FORUM, SKYPE AND GOOGLE HANGOUT AND AFFILIATES

    The CEMB’s active web forum with over 3,000 members continues to support ex-Muslims. It represents a safe space where ex-Muslims can come together to discuss their problems and help each other. The forum includes sections on health and wellbeing and gender and sexuality, a parents’ corner, a resource centre and more. It is known for exposing Islamists and Islamic laws, and publishes articles and videos debunking Islamic myths and claims, including “science in the Quran. You can join the forum here.

    Ex-Muslim Jaimie Barr will be working with CEMB as its Outreach Coordinator, including assisting ex-Muslims outside of Britain needing support and managing our Skype and Google Hangouts. Jaimie can be reached at cemboutreach@gmail.com.

    A list of CEMB affiliated organisations can be found here.

    NEW WEBSITE ON QURAN AND ISLAM

    CEMB member The Rationaliser has a new website to help with research on Islam or the Quran. Features include Search, Ability to view each verse word-by-word and to see where else in the Quran the same Arabic word is used (helps with context), Verses have links to tafsirs explaining them, Verses link to any relevant hadiths and Verses also link to the “circumstances of revelation” (Asbab Al Nuzul). Please contact The Rationaliser with websites, documents, etc. containing other tafsirs or hadith collections which he might be able to incorporate. You can find more information here.

    SUPPORT US

    Help us to continue our important work: volunteer your skills; ‘Like’ our Facebook page; follow our Twitter account @CEMB_forum; join our events; and subscribe to our YouTube channel. Please donate if you can. No amount is too small and every bit helps.

    We are also in desperate need of office space so you if know of any free or reasonable spaces in central London please do contact us.

    The issue of apostasy without a focus on Islam and Islamism is irrelevant in this era as it is only apostates from Islam who are killed due to Islamism’s access and influence. The CEMB is an important challenge to this regressive movement. Support us.

    Warm Wishes

    Maryam Namazie
    Nahla Mahmoud
    Spokespersons
    Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
    BM Box 1919, London WC1N 3XX, UK
    tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
    email: exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com
    web: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/

    Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under company number 8059509.

  • Hey, baby, check out mah thumb

    Ian Murphy of the Buffalo Beast – I totally know the Buffalo Beast, they interviewed me once, like a million years ago – Ian Murphy of the Buffalo Beast, I say, had a little chat with Michael Shermer.

    A friend warns, don’t read it aloud to someone who’s driving a car. That clearly implies also don’t read it while drinking, eating, lighting a match, balancing on a high wire, cutting your toenails, sitting with a cat on your lap, holding a baby, soldering a pipe, crossing a street, swimming.

    It starts this way:

    DR. MICHAEL SHERMER is known as an editor, a skeptic, a TED talker, a thinker. Others see him as “that intellectual lightweight who loves Ayn Rand and didn’t ‘understand’ global warming until unconscionably recently.”

    And then it goes on. Read the list of things not to be doing while reading it before you read it. But do read it. Read it all.

  • Meet Cecil Fuson

    Yesterday I told you about that stupid Facebook page Skeptics and Atheists against Rebecca Watson. Today Rebecca presents some new information about one of the people behind that page. First, there was a message…

    A few days ago, I received this email via the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe contact form:

    From: Cecil Fuson

    Email: Viciousvestments@gmail.com

    Location: Raleigh, NC

    Category: Question for the Show

    Subject: quote request

    Message: Good day, my name is Cecil Fuson. Together with Brandi Olson and a member of the Atheist news group (A news) we run a small Facebook group that is called Skeptics and Atheists against Rebecca Watson. We currently have 87 members and are growing everyday. It should be noted that a fair number of our fans are also fans of the SGU as well as on the personal friend list of some of the members of the SGU

    We were wondering if you could give us a quote and answer a question for us. Why is Rebecca Watson still on the SGU?
    It is clear that by her own blog post that she no longer supports the JREF, the CFI or Richard Dawkins. It is clear by the large number of posts, groups and petitions that the Skeptic and Atheist community no longer support Watson. It is clear that Watson uses the fame from programs like the SGU to spread her own agenda and misinformation. While we fully agree that Rebecca Watson has every right to speak her mind, we feel that her actions , no matter how well meaning they may be, are doing more damage than good.
    the SGU seems to support the same groups that Watson boycotts and the same groups that want nothing to do with Watson.
    So with the public opinion being what it is, why dose Rebecca Watson still have a spot on the SGU?

    Thank you for your time. And we hope to get a reply soon.

    That’s what prompted her to find the Facebook page, and do a sarcastic tweet about it, which in turn is what reminded me of that page (which I’d seen, and reported to Facebook, of course to no avail, weeks ago), and what prompted me and several others to post on it. Meanwhile…

    A few days after I Tweeted the link to the Facebook page, I received an email from someone who explained that they had discovered that Cecil Fuson is a registered sex offender who was convicted and went to prison for “indecent liberties with a minor.”

    I spent the past day checking to make sure that this was, in fact, the same Cecil Fuson, and the facts line up. Cecil’s email address links to the Facebook page of Vicious Vestments, an LLC registered in North Carolina using the same address that is registered for the sex offender. Cecil’s dad is also named Cecil Fuson, but it appears he moved to Florida. Besides, Cecil’s Google+ profile that showed up when he emailed me has an avatar that looks much more like a 33-year old man than a 57-year old man, and I’m going to assume that the younger man is more likely to dress up as Boba Fett and start a company selling steampunk costumes, so I think we can say with a high degree of confidence that we’re dealing with the junior.

    So there’s that.

  • Storify the story

    John Scalzi quoted an informant who emailed him about ElevatorGATE and harassment via Twitter and Storify yesterday. (The quoting was with permission.)

    A Twitter and Storify user who goes by the handle “@elevatorGATE” is a well-known cyberstalker of women via social media. His latest method of doing this is to compile thousands of pieces on Storify, often including every single tweet sent by his chosen targets, and then publish them, which notifies the women in question that he had published yet another piece archiving their every word. After repeated complaints and requests for help, Storify temporarily deactivated the notification feature on his account, which doesn’t actually solve the problem.

    In a conversation yesterday with Xavier Damman, the Storify CEO suggested that the women @elevatorGATE is targeting turn off all notifications from Storify, which essentially suggests that they withdraw from the medium if they don’t like being stalked, and which also wouldn’t solve the problem of this user archiving everything these women say. One of the users pointed out that this is very much like telling a woman who is being harassed via telephone to never answer the phone. It was at this point in the conversation that Damman went from passively enabling a stalker to actively assisting one. He tweeted, in response to the women, that they “…can’t do anything about that. It’s @elevatorgate’s right to quote public statements…”

    To interrupt for a moment – no it isn’t, not in every sense. It’s a legal right, but that doesn’t make it every other kind of right. The fact that it’s a legal right isn’t a reason for the CEO of Twitter Storify to pretend it’s also every other kind of right.

    Prior to this point in the conversation, the women had named their stalker, but not used the @ symbol in front of his username. You know enough about Twitter to know why that’s a big deal. Damman either carelessly or deliberately notified a man stalking multiple women that they were seeking some way to prevent him from continuing to harass them, and then claimed it was no big deal because anyone searching for the information would have been able to find it. But there’s a very big difference between information existing and that same information being directly brought to a person’s attention.

    If you know much about stalking, you’ll know what happens next. @elevatorGATE has substantially stepped up his harassment of the women who had asked Damman for help. Men who follow him on both Storify and Twitter have been bombarding these women via Storify notifications and Tweets with additional harassment. He has also increased his harassment of known online associates of the women in question, making it difficult for them to seek out help or support from fear of his beginning to stalk their friends as well. It’s the reason I’m contacting you privately, via email, rather than via social media: I’m afraid. I don’t want to be added to his list of targets.

    Despite Damman’s claims that they can’t do anything, @elevatorGATE is violating Storify’s Terms of Service, which forbids users to:

    Post, upload, publish, submit or transmit any Content that: (ii): violates, or encourages any conduct that would violate, any applicable law or regulation… (v) promotes discrimination, bigotry, racism, hatred, harassment or harm against any individual or group…

    As I’ve mentioned here many times, I’ve tried to get Twitter to do something about 3 or 4 of the many instances of harassment I get via their service, and Twitter has been almost entirely unhelpful.

    One comment sums up the nature of the harassment neatly.

    When someone who has no particular welcome connection to you follows you around recording everything you say, and reposting all of it, and making sure you know they’re reposting everything you say, that is some sort of implicit threat. It might be a little less obvious what exactly the threat is, but I would note that, among people I know, women are pretty much always going to be a bit nervous when a hostile stranger is making it very clear that he is obsessively interested in them…

    I’m not sure that applies only to women though, in fact I strongly doubt that it does.

  • Another FT boolly

    Oh and did you know Alex Gabriel has joined Freethought Blogs? He has.

    This is very good news.

    Of course, it’s sad for him that FTB is in imminent danger of collapse – well people do keep telling us that, so it must be true – but he’s young, I’m sure he’ll bounce right back when it happens.

  • How?

    A beautiful Jesus and Mo yesterday.

    teach

    I love the “women still dodgy” bit, also the fact that it’s in the Guardian.

  • Quantity

    Oh I think I get it – what DJ Grothe meant by saying he thinks “unduly-moralistic scolds end up actively diminishing human flourishing by their sex-negativity.”

    He means if we get our way, and sexual harassment at atheist/skeptic conferences becomes unfashionable (aka “politically incorrect”), then there will be less sex at those conferences. There will be less total sex. Our goal, if achieved, would lead to less sex. That equals sex negativity.

    Yes, if you define it that way, he’s right. The kind of sex where a dudebro plies a woman with alcohol until she becomes too out of it to consider whether or not she wants to have sex with him and just has it – that kind of sex there would be less of.

    So, yes, if you’re thinking about sex purely from the angle of “I want as much of it as possible, under whatever conditions, in whatever circumstances, whatever the other person actually thinks about it” then anything that gets in the way of that goal is going to appear to be sex-negative.

    But that’s a slaveowner’s way of thinking about sex.

  • Scolds

    And for today’s installment of thinly-veiled loathing – Stephanie quotes DJ Grothe on Facebook.

    It’s rank.

    There is an impressive distemper these days on the internets.

    Many smart, good people that I know personally seem to fear this “call-out culture” online that is going on right now in many communities online. Folks are immobilized by a moral scare or panic that they think they are watching unfold presently. As for me, I think it all seems increasingly like some surreal science fiction imagining of some bizarre future dystopia. And so, I say:

    Consensual sex — between any mature adult male or female etc. — is a human good. It is something that should be prized and promoted (would there be world peace if people just had more and better sex, ha?).

    But instead I think unduly-moralistic scolds end up actively diminishing human flourishing by their sex-negativity.

    And I curse the unholy alliance of the quack far-left so-called feminists: a different kind of ardent feminist than I am — and the authoritarian anti-sex rightist religionists whom I used to run with decades ago. (How the heck is it that these two equal opposites agree on so very much these days, and the two last decades, too?).

    I have a disturbing answer, but it doesn’t work for a social networking or FB comment..

    For a start – moral panic? Really? Trying to end sexual harassment – not consensual sex, but sexual harassment – is a moral panic? What an ugly thing to say.

    Then, “unduly-moralistic scolds” – that’s right out of the time-honored woman-hating playbook.

    There was such a thing as a scold’s bridle.

    A scold’s bridle, sometimes called brank’s bridle or simply the branks, was a punishment device used primarily on women, as a form of torture and public humiliation.[1] It was an iron muzzle in an iron framework that enclosed the head. The bridle-bit (or curb-plate) was about 2 inches long and 1 inch broad, projected into the mouth and pressed down on top of the tongue.[2] The “curb-plate” was frequently studded with spikes, so that if the tongue moved, it inflicted pain and made speaking impossible. [3] Wives who were seen as witches, shrews and scolds, were forced to wear a brank’s bridle, which was locked on the head of the woman.

    Nice job, DJ. That’s the way to convince everyone that there’s no misogyny in the skepticism community – call women you dislike “scolds.”

    Branks were used in Scotland to punish slander, cursing, witchcraft or irreligious speech.

    And then, wanting to end sexual harassment is not “sex negativity.” For that matter, sexual harassment is not sex positivity, either.

    And then, there’s “the quack far-left so-called feminists.” Dog whistle dog whistle dog whistle dog whistle.

    And then, perhaps worst of all, there’s “I have a disturbing answer, but it doesn’t work for a social networking or FB comment..” It’s so easy to imagine what he means. It’s even uglier than what he did say in social networking FB comment, so it’s ugly indeed, and we can easily guess what kind of ugly.

  • Against – against against against

    It’s been a day for Displaying the Nasty, so I’ll display some more.

    There’s a horrible Facebook page called Skeptics and Atheists against Rebecca Watson. It’s public, so you can look at it if you’re on Facebook.

    Its profile picture is…symptomatic.

    Cute, isn’t it? Just “No Rebecca Watson” – just like that.

    And who sets up a page “Against” an individual? Unless the individual is “Mother” Teresa or a bishop or some other truly harmful person of that kind. I reported it to Facebook ages ago, but of course they replied that they’re fine with it. It’s not a woman nursing a baby, so let a thousand flowers bloom, amirite?

    Rebecca tweeted about it yesterday (using her dreaded weapon of sarcasm, as usual), so I feel able to post a sample from its wisdom.

    bad

    bad2

    And a longer one that I’ll just quote. This is from two days ago, and is no doubt what prompted Rebecca’s tweet.

    So with everything being as it is, I just.sent this email to the people over at.SGU. let’s see if we get a reply.

    Good day, my name is Cecil Fuson. Together with Brandi Olson and a member of the Atheist news group (A news) we run a small Facebook group that is called Skeptics and Atheists against Rebecca Watson. We currently have 87 members and are growing everyday. It should be noted that a fair number of our fans are also fans of the SGU as well as on the personal friend list of some of the members of the SGU

    We were wondering if you could give us a quote and answer a question for us. Why is Rebecca Watson still on the SGU?
    It is clear that by her own blog post that she no longer supports the JREF, the CFI or Richard Dawkins. It is clear by the large number of posts, groups and petitions that the Skeptic and Atheist community no longer support Watson. It is clear that Watson uses the fame from programs like the SGU to spread her own agenda and misinformation. While we fully agree that Rebecca Watson has every right to speak her mind, we feel that her actions , no matter how well meaning they may be, are doing more damage than good.
    the SGU seems to support the same groups that Watson boycotts and the same groups that want nothing to do with Watson.
    So with the public opinion being what it is, why dose Rebecca Watson still have a spot on the SGU?

    Thank you for your time. And we hope to get a reply soon.

     Not the sharpest knives in the drawer, are they.

    Update Just to round out the picture – a couple of posts from May 20, the day the page was born.

    bad3

    How stupid is that? It starts by talking about “pushing particular philosophies or ideologies” and then instantly changes its mind and talks about “her personality” instead.

    Plus it announces that she’s divisive and hostile, on a brand new page set up to be hostile and divisive.

    bad4

    Nothing creepy about that. Nothing divisive and hostile about that, or authoritarian, either. Nothing there that’s anathema to the free exchange of ideas. Gosh no.

  • Transcript of Mr Deity’s advice on gossip and wine consumption

    Transcription courtesy of John Morales.

    I want to take this time today to answer this question I get a lot: why don’t I believe in the gospels.

    Um — the first big problem I have with the gospels is that they are anonymous — a lot of people don’t know that, but it’s true.

    Um, and no good skeptic, atheist, freethinker should ever accept any anonymous report just offhand; aah especially when we’re talking about something truly awful — I mean, the gospel writers have Jesus doing some pretty ugly stuff.  Umm, killing a tree for no reason, which makes him look completely insane; they have him claiming to be God, which would have been a major blasphemy within Judaism at the time; and they have him turning water into wine, which we all know is just a tactic to get the ladies drunk — right? — I mean, no-one turns water into wine for any reason that’s not just completely nefarious!

    But if you’re gonna talk [whoopee noise] about someone like that, you can’t do that anonymously — and if you do, what is that?  What are we talking about?

    That’s nothing more than gossip.

    And I think that as good skeptics, atheists, freethinkers, we should all know how absolutely toxic, disgusting and beneath us it is to repeat and or report mere gossip.

    [Person with wine bottle approaches wineglass-holding Mr. Deity: “would you like a refill?” “Um, no.  Thank you.”]

    Now.  See how easy that was?

    Here’s another little tip: if you find it hard to say no to the refill, you can just leave the glass full!  Don’t take another sip!

    That’s my friendly little piece of advice to those of you without a backbone, or any sense of personal responsibility!

    The other problem with the gospels is that these anonymous reports are made years after the fact; some scholars say decades. Ah, that gives Jesus no opportunity to refute the claims — I mean, there isn’t a decent justice system in the entire world that doesn’t give the accused the right to confront his or her accuser.  That’s just basic justice.

    And in many cases, even the witnesses of the witnesses are anonymous.

    Really?! C’mon!  We’re skeptics! We don’t take stuff like that at face value!

    The other problem here is confirmation bias: the tendency to see only what we wanna see.

    That’s clearly what the gospel writers were doing here; they wanted a hero (or a villain, depending on your perspective), and they found one!

    But, as good skeptics, we should all know the power of confirmation bias — I mean, for heaven’s sake, they found witches in Salem, and Joe McCarthy found the communists under every bed — as skeptics, we need to stand up to these anonymous gossipal authors and those who would repeat such gossip and say “have you no sense of decency, Sir! At long last, have you left no sense of decency.”

    Of course, if you’re completely divorced from the skeptic community, I don’t expect you to understand these basic principles — but the rest of us should know better!

    Remember: “do unto others”

  • Your various cleverations

    A three-year-old observation by John Scalzi, just because I saw it and like it. The failure mode of clever is asshole.

    So, apropos of nothing in particular, let’s say you wish to communicate privately with someone you’ve not communicated with privately before, for whatever reason you might have. And, wanting to stand out from the crowd, you decide to try to be clever about it, because, hey, you are a clever person, and as far as you know, people seem to like that about you. So you write your clever bit and send it off, safe in the knowledge of your cleverosity, and confident that your various cleverations will make the impression you want to make on the intended cleveree.

    I hate that person already.

    Is that so wrong of me?

    I can’t bear people who think they’re fraffly clever and are always being it, which means they aren’t. Always being funny when really they’re just being obnoxious or tedious or both.

    Two things here.

    1. The effectiveness of clever on other people is highly contingent on outside factors, over which you have no control and of which you may not have any knowledge; i.e., just because you intended to be clever doesn’t mean you will be perceived as clever, for all sorts of reasons.

    2. The failure mode of clever is “asshole.”

    That makes this whole day worthwhile.

  • A kernel

    For once, there’s a kernel of truth in something Brendan O’Neill writes (in the Telegraph this time). Only a kernel though.

    When did atheists become so teeth-gratingly annoying? Surely non-believers in God weren’t always the colossal pains in the collective backside that they are today? Surely there was a time when you could say to someone “I am an atheist” without them instantly assuming you were a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks given to making pseudo-clever statements like, “Well, Leviticus also frowns upon having unkempt hair, did you know that?” Things are now so bad that I tend to keep my atheism to myself, and instead mumble something about being a very lapsed Catholic if I’m put on the spot, for fear that uttering the A-word will make people think I’m a Dawkins drone with a mammoth superiority complex and a hives-like allergy to nurses wearing crucifixes.

    You can see the kernel of truth there, I’m sure. You can see it because Dawkins has been doing a bang-up job lately of performing that very atheist in public, by which I mean, on Twitter. You can see it also because so many Dawkins drones (to use O’Neill’s label) have been doing the same ever since July 2011.

    These days, barely a week passes without the emergence of yet more evidence that atheists are the most irritating people on Earth. Last week we had the spectacle of Dawkins and his slavish Twitter followers (whose adherence to Dawkins’ diktats makes those Kool-Aid-drinking Jonestown folk seem level-headed in comparison) boring on about how stupid Muslims are.

    And this is why the kernel is only a kernel. Yes, last week we had that spectacle, but we also had the spectacle of many atheists saying that Twitter performance was shit. We had Alex Gabriel saying it. We had me saying it. We had a good few saying it.

    Atheists online are forever sharing memes about how stupid religious people are. I know this because some of my best Facebook friends are atheists. There’s even a website called Atheist Meme Base, whose most popular tags tell you everything you need to know about it and about the kind of people who borrow its memes to proselytise about godlessness to the ignorant: “indoctrination”, “Christians”, “funny”, “hell”, “misogyny”, “scumbag God”, “logic”. Atheists in the public sphere spend their every tragic waking hour doing little more than mocking the faithful. In the words of Robin Wright, they seem determined “to make it not just uncool to believe, but cool to ridicule believers”. To that end if you ever have the misfortune, as I once did, to step foot into an atheistic get-together, which are now common occurrences in the Western world, patronised by people afflicted with repetitive strain injury from so furiously patting themselves on the back for being clever, you will witness unprecedented levels of intellectual smugness and hostility towards hoi polloi.

    Sometimes that’s true. There’s the kernel again. But it’s not always true, and then…when there is a protected, deferential, entrenched culture-wide view that religious beliefs must not be treated as in any way intellectually dubious, then there’s a need for a certain amount of frank, blunt, even tactless confrontation.

    But…a certain amount is not an infinite amount, and the frank blunt tactless confrontation can get stale, and when it’s personal it can get worse than stale.

    The anti-feminist mostly-misogynist harassers among the atheists have perhaps made it easier for me to see this. (Or, from their point of view, have caused me to adopt this particular bias.) Their ugly combination of malice and persistence has put me off things like endless rude tweets about religion, even if I agree with the substance. (But then how much substance can there be in a tweet? That’s part of the problem. Tweets are for slogans, not substance.)

    So, what’s gone wrong with atheism? The problem isn’t atheism itself, of course, which is just non-belief, a nothing, a lack of something. Rather it is the transformation of this nothing into an identity, into the basis of one’s outlook on life, which gives rise to today’s monumentally annoying atheism. The problem with today’s campaigning atheists is that they have turned their absence of belief in God into the be-all and end-all of their personality. Which is bizarre. Atheism merely signals what you don’t believe in, not what you do believe in. It’s a negative. And therefore, basing your entire worldview on it is bound to generate immense amounts of negativity. Where earlier generations of the Godless viewed their atheism as a pretty minor part of their personality, or at most as the starting point of their broader identity as socialists or humanists or whatever, today’s ostentatiously Godless folk constantly declare “I am an atheist!” as if that tells you everything you need to know about a person, when it doesn’t.

    There’s a good deal to that. Two kernels maybe, instead of one. Or, less grudgingly, he’s right. That is after all what we’ve been arguing for the past year or more – we who have. We want more than atheism. Atheism, hell yes, but also more than that.

    It’s odd to find myself agreeing with O’Neill – but he did less coat-trailing than usual in this piece. Or am I imagining it?

  • Gideon bibles? Ok then – atheist books too.

    American Atheists has sent out a press release.

    Cartersville, Georgia—Beginning Wednesday, visitors to Georgia State Parks vacationing in government-owned rental cabins can read atheist books during their stay courtesy of American Atheists. The national non-profit announced that its former President, Ed Buckner, will distribute hundreds of donated copies of atheist literature to the Red Top State Park for placement in cabin bedside drawers, alongside Bibles already placed there, on Wednesday morning.

    Additional atheist books will be distributed to A.H. Stephens Historic Park in Crawfordville, Georgia at 2:00 PM EDT on Wednesday afternoon, with more parks to follow later this week.

    In May of this year, Buckner was vacationing in Amicalola Falls State Park with his family, where he had rented a state-owned cabin. Within the cabin he found nine Gideon Bibles, placed there by park management. Since the cabins are government owned, Buckner considers it a violation of separation of church and state to allow their placement without granting equal representation to other religious groups. “When you go into a state park cabin and the only piece of religious literature there is a Protestant Bible, that suggests the government’s endorsement of that particular perspective,” said Buckner.

    Upon receiving his complaint, park management initially removed the Bibles, but after conferring with his Attorney General, Governor Deal ordered them to be returned, noting that the books were donated by the Gideons, and adding “Any group is free to donate literature.”

    The upset made international media, including The Economist and Reuters (see links at end of release).

    American Atheists took Deal up on his offer this week with the first delivery of donated books, including copies of The Skeptics Annotated Bible by Steve Wells, Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq, and Fear, Faith, Fact, Fantasy by Dr. John A. Henderson. See images here.

    “American Atheists does not believe the State of Georgia should be placing Bibles or atheist books in state park cabins; however, if the state is going to allow such distribution, we will happily provide our materials,” said President David Silverman.

    “We appreciate the governor’s invitation to place atheist books in the cabins and look forward to providing visitors with the opportunity to learn more about atheism when they visit Georgia’s beautiful state parks,” said Managing Director Amanda Knief.

    AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a national 501(c)(3) organization that defends civil rights for atheists, freethinkers, and other nonbelievers; works for the total separation of religion and government; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy. American Atheists celebrates its 50th anniversary this year.

    American Atheists’ 40th Annual National Convention will feature such speakers such as NFL Oakland Raiders Chris Kluwe, Survivor®: Philippines grand prizewinner Denise Stapley, Grammy-winning Spin Doctors bass player Mark White, Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Maryam Namazie of the Council of Ex-Muslims, popular bloggers PZ Myers and Greta Christina, and American Atheists President David Silverman. The convention will also feature a costume party, live music, stand-up comedy, an art show and silent auction, national and local exhibitors, and childcare options for attending families. The convention takes place the the weekend of April 17-20, 2014 in Salt Lake City, Utah.

     

    American Atheists, Inc.

    P.O. Box 158

    Cranford, NJ 07016

    Tel: (908) 276-7300

    Fax: (908) 276-7402

  • Anything that can be made to look reasonable

    From Richard Webster’s Why Freud Was Wrong:

    …although Freud had initially reacted skeptically to Jung’s interest in the occult, he had eventually come to regard this aspect of his work with almost exactly the same credulity he once bestowed on the ideas of Fliess. “In matters of occultism,” he replies, “I have grown humble since the great lesson Ferenczi’s experiences gave me; I promise to believe anything that can be made to look reasonable.” Freud’s words, “I promise to believe anything that can be made to look reasonable,” might well be used to summarize the intellectual ethos of psychoanalysis itself. For his most enduring achievement was, as has already been argued, to take a fundamentally superstitious and irrational view of the world, deriving directly from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and re-present it in the vocabulary of modern science. As a result of the extraordinary skill with which he did this, psychoanalysis has continued to offer to intellectuals what it also gave to its founder – a means of using science (or rather the rhetoric of science) in order to fortify traditional religious doctrines against the skepticism of science. [pp 385-6]

    Interesting, I think.

    I don’t find Webster’s arguments for the direct derivation of Freud’s view of the world from “the Judaeo-Christian tradition” all that convincing, just as I don’t find claims that ideas such as equality or human rights derive from that tradition convincing. The point about the appearance as opposed to reality, however, I think is spot-on.

  • From around the Twitters

    Because it’s a hot afternoon. Also because they kept making me laugh.

    @TheTweetOfGod

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. But then there’s like two million more after that, so what’s the point?

    Laurie Penny @PennyRed

    That’s a shame-  the main reason I do politics is so that internet creeps will want to fuck me.

    Then I read the conversation in that one. That part isn’t amusing. It’s stupid.

    Guardian Reader @guardianista

    Not trying to sound sexist or anything, but who do you think’s more attractive of tonight’s debaters: @AlexandralSwann or @pennyred?

    So that’s enough of that conversation. And good old “Don’t take this the wrong way/Not to be politically incorrect or anything/I’m not a racist but” – it’s so brilliant the way people think they get a free asshole-pass as long as they flag it up ahead of time. Protip! It doesn’t become any less sexist simply because you tell us you know it’s sexist!

    Not trying to be serious here.

    Some guy I don’t know.

    @Popehat dont kick yourself just because everyone will have served their minimum mandatory term by the time they finish reading your post.

  • The immense freedom

    Marie-Thérèse has a haunting post about summer holidays in Rathdrum, County Wicklow, which was the one escape from the misery of Goldenbridge that most of the children had.

    As a child at Goldenbridge industrial “school” during the sixties summertime season, I absolutely adored heading off on the ‘Special’ bus to Rathdrum, Co. Wicklow. Bernadette Fahy in her book “Freedom of Angels” referred to St. Joseph’s Holiday Home, that was for Goldenbridge children who had no families to take them out on summer holidays, as a haven. She felt that all the stress built up from being enclosed in Goldenbridge just lifted when she went there. She felt her sanity had been restored. The same was applicable with me. The immense freedom was also absolutely blissful to all the other exhausted children, who were cooped up for the rest of the year in a very cold, damp, outdated, not fit for purpose ex women’s prison refuge that was situated on the outskirts of Dublin city.

    Goldenbridge was a hellhole, and Rathdrum was an escape from the hellhole.

    I even remember enjoying going to mass in the oratory that dominated a large part of the left hand side of the ground floor of the palatial building. One could view to one’s heart’s content the abundance of old trees and greenery from the aforementioned windows. A bright red swanky carpet donned the entrance floor to the temporary makeshift altar in the centre, that only the serving priest was allowed to use. Children were never forced to attend mass in the tiny oratory. They went of their own volition, which was not something that occurred in Goldenbridge, where they were beaten if they had any qualms about going to the convent chapel, or they resorted to hiding in a cupboard full of old mattresses. What a difference it made to young people to be given a choice for once in their young lives.

    It breaks the heart.

  • No, the system does not work

    It’s fashionable, this hobby of bullying women. Kelly Diels explores the fashion in Salon.

    When Rebecca Meredith took the stage in March at the Glasgow Ancients, an annual university debate tournament, she and her debate partner, Marlena Valles, were prepared for a little heckling. After all, Meredith is ranked the third top university debater in Europe in 2012 and Valles won best speaker in Scotland’s 2013 national championship, so between the two of them they’ve “beaten men in debates hundreds of times” and “can deal with heckles,” writes Meredith in the Huffington Post. But even before the two debaters started speaking, a cadre of men in the audience began to boo, continued to boo throughout the debate, shouted “Shame, woman!” and “analysed their sexual attractiveness.” When a woman judge intervened, reports Lucy Sheriff, the men called the judge “a frigid bitch.”

    That’s no good.

    There are resources for bullying that I wasn’t aware of.

    Encyclopedia Dramatica, a deliberately offensive wiki outlining the worldview and language of some of the people congregating in the forums and chat rooms of 4chan.org, defines “trolling” as “Internet Eugenics.” Trolling is designed to enrage and traumatize targets – especially women and minorities – so that they’ll go ahead and “leave the internet.”

    That’s no good.

    Online campaigns designed to punish particular people are called “lulz,” the phonetic version of the acronym “LOL,” meaning laugh out loud, which describes both the systematic process for chasing people off the Internet as well as the result (maximum amusement!). Lulz has “standard operating procedures” and the first of those procedures is trolling, or leaving a large volume of offensive comments on a person’s blog and tweeting hateful messages to them. Trolling is both a signal and a threat. Shut up and get off the Internet, is the message, or there will be further consequences – such as the publication of your personal details (called “doxing”) so you can be harassed not just online but by phone and at your home, followed by denial of service (dos) attacks on your website or, if you’ve really infuriated them, distributed denial of service attacks (Ddos) against your host provider (which will crash not just your site but thousands of other sites also hosted by those servers).

    To recap: 1) trolling, 2) doxing, 3) dos or Ddos attacks. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    And repeat they do. Set up only nine years ago, in 2004, Encyclopedia Dramatica contains hundreds of entries documenting past and future victims of a “lollercoaster.” Writer Melissa McEwan, owner of Shakesville, a multi-author blog about feminism and intersectionality, is one of the targets. Her address and phone number are published and so are suggestions about how to troll her, ranging from emailing her penis pictures, to “revenge-raping her,” to targeting a Shakesville audience member who also owns a blog by extracting “their info from whois database, Facebook, or a phone book then proceed to raep.” (Rape, deliberately misspelled as “raep,” can mean a dos or Ddos attack.) In 2007, the Shakesville website, along with several other feminist blogs, was the subject of Ddos attacks – but the primary tool used to harass McEwan, year after year, is threats of sexual violence and death. At one point, McEwan says, Encyclopedia Dramatica “used to feature a campaign offering a financial reward to anyone who could offer proof of raping and/or murdering me.”

    That’s no good.

    That’s a system in which the only people who can be genuinely free to participate are psychopaths. What the hell good is a system like that? Who wants to hear from no one but psychopaths (apart from other psychopaths)? Who wants to live in PsycopathWorld? Who wants online intellectual life handed over to psychopaths?

    So the first and most easily sustained method in the lulz process is the online hate storm – like the one directed at McEwan for the last several years, or the most recent one directed at Caroline Criado-Perez for her successful petition to have Jane Austen’s face put on the back of the UK’s £10 note. After the Bank of England announced that, yes, Jane Austen’s visage would grace the new bank note, Criado-Perez began receiving rape threats and death threats via Twitter – sometimes as many as 50 an hour. Criado-Perez told the BBC UK that she had “stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women.”

    “This is a systemic issue, the people doing this, this is their hobby, they just move from target to target, they’re like a roaming gang of some kind,” explains developer and consultant Adria Richards. She has “screen shots and screen captures of places where they were organizing these attacks,” Richards says, and sure enough, “they have scripts, templates.”

    No good, no good, no good.

    With legal recourse either unavailable or unenforceable, does the speech of trolls – online hecklers actively seeking to silence their targets – constitute a Heckler’s Veto? [Wendy] Kaminer says no. Trolling doesn’t interfere with articles and blog posts published online in the same way that a speaker can be silenced at a live event. Online, even when websites are bombarded with offensive comments or speakers are sent volumes of frightening messages, those communications don’t interfere with a person’s ability to publish a text or with an audience’s ability to read it. The words remain.

    I’m sorry, I like much of what Kaminer writes, but that’s just obtuse. The words don’t remain – they never appear if the people who would write them have been bullied into leaving the internet (see above). In PsychopathWorld, most words are filtered out by the psychopaths.

    As Diels says.

    Except the words might not remain. In 2007, after receiving rape threats and death threats, tech blogger Kathy Sierra canceled her speaking engagements, moved house (her address had been published and messages and packages were being sent to her home), and stopped writing and blogging for six years. (One of Sierra’s tormentors was later revealed to be “Weev,” an online identity of Andrew Auernheimer, who was later arrested and sentenced to 41 months in prison for hacking AT&T’s customer data.) Writer Linda Grant told journalists Vanessa Thorpe and Richard Rogers she quit writing her column for the Guardian because of “violent hate speech” that included anti-Semitism and misogyny. And just a few months ago, in June, Ms. Magazine canceled a series of blog posts by Heidi Yewman because it was unable to adequately moderate a trolling backlash that included attempts to publish Yewman’s home address. Ms. later reversed its position and reinstated the series, but the magazine’s first reaction is revealing. If a politically seasoned and professionally staffed organization with decades of experience confronting controversial issues can be destabilized by a trolling and lulz campaign, it’s not surprising that individual women quit, too.

    “I’ve spoken to many women who simply stopped engaging,” says feminist activist and author Soraya Chemaly. “They don’t support other people online because they don’t want to be targeted, they’ve stopped writing about certain topics, they silence themselves – which is of course the issue.” She adds, “I’m happy to talk about free speech, it’s very dear to me […] but the free speech we have to take care of first is the speech that is already lost,” because women are being intimidated off the Internet, out of public life and into silence.

    I’ve spoken to many such women too. I’ve also spoken to many women who say they would have stopped engaging if it weren’t for women who refuse to get off the Internet, out of public life and into silence. Kaminer would apparently read that as “See? The system works, those women stay.” That would be a fatuous and callous mistake. Yes, some of us stay, but we pay a price that we should not have to pay. Yes, others stay because we stay, but they too pay a price that they should not have to pay. It’s not a stable system and it sure as hell is not a fair system.