Dear NECSS: Re-invite Richard Dawkins!

I like my coffee strong, with
a spoonful or two of Watson

Per the North East Conference on Science and Skepticism disinviting Richard Dawkins from its annual meeting, after an even-for-him offensive tweet of a cartoonish video that was designed to offend both feminists and Muslims, as covered here by Massimo Pigliucci, I had some follow-up thoughts.

Namely —

Re-invite Dawkins, but require him to speak on a particular topic.

Samples would be —
1. Is there an “Islamist gene”?
2. Is there an “offensive British curmudgeon gene, or meme”?
3. Please give a multi-level selection account for the evolution of Gnu Atheists
4. Is there a “brights gene”?

5. Do genes for "Gnu Atheism" and "Social Justice Warriordom" co-evolve?

6. Yes or no: You'd like Rebecca Watson to have your children

7. Yes or no: You think all the Atheism Plus chicks should be your groupies.

For the actual video that Dawkins tweeted, then later tried to soft-sell:

With that as illustration, I seriously note this is nothing new, in the larger scope of things, for Dawkins. His Twitter account is a paean of anti-Muslim, anti-feminist invective.

Anyway, to get back to the sarcastic main point ..

Allegedly, that's Atheism Plus darling Rebecca Watson
at left. (Link of photo implies no consent to all content.)

Or hell, let's just co-invite Dawkins and Watkins.

Sample topics —

1. Discuss how evolutionary psychology created "homo elevatoricus."

2. Discuss the merits or demerits of hotel room service beer vs. hotel room service coffee as pick-ups.

3. Discuss using alcohol as an excuse for avoiding personal responsibility. Discuss whether men or women are worse at this; discuss this as a campus, academic, and professional conference issue.

4. Discuss common psychological, physiological definitions of alcoholism, and abusive drinking.

Or, let's invite the shunted-aside soon-to-be former head of the Center for Inquiry, Ron Lindsay, with CFI merging with the Richard Dawkins Educational Foundation. Because we know the Gnus and Atheism Plus kiddies love him. And, maybe he's butthurt in private about the CFI set-aside.

And, not invite him instead of Dawkins, or Dawkins/Watson. In addition!

Insert three-way jokes here.

Note to all offended persons: Per Harvard, I'm improving my mental health. Thanks for participating.

Barack Obama writes his "Dear Latina" letter

People who aren't Gnu Atheists, or opponents of social justice warrior martyrdom probably won't get the reference to Elevatorgate, but here goes.

On MSNBC's "Weekends with Alex Witt," former DNC Chairman Howard Dean promises Democrats aren't taking African-American votes for granted.

Of course, in "discussing" issues with Kay Bailey Cheerleader, a kinder, gentler John Cornyn, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel, right?

And, of course, KBH is wrong; to the degree there is voter fraud, it's old white folks committing (or having committed in their name) vote fraud on absentee ballots by mail.

Indeed, a Shrub Bush special commission said so. Here's all the ways that vote fraud with absentee mail ballots can be done. And, those old white folks, and their enablers, ain't pulling the D lever.

That said, let's go to the header. At just past the six-minute mark on this video, Howard Dean says that Democrats, while not taking African-American votes for granted, may have done that to some degree with Latino/Latina votes on immigration reform:

At least Dean mildly called out Obama on the issue.

But, speaking of things, back to that header, and the Elevatorgate link. Richard Dawkins, for the unfamiliar, gave Rebecca Watson this response:

Dear Muslima 

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. 

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . . 

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin. 

Richard

It drew immediate howls, and an eventual apology of sorts from Dawkins.

So, back to Howard Dean, and the man he mildly chastized:

Dear Latina: 

I know you're on an elevator, and it's late at night, and you barely know me, and it's been a long day at this conference. 

But, I really need ... 

Some money. 

Please, just five minutes with your checkbook, and I'll be "satisfied." 

I promise, those emails are true, too. 

You actually do have a chance to see me in person. 

If you contribute enough money, and contribute it now. 

Only your money can help me pass that comprehensive immigration reform that I want to pass. Only your money can stop me from having to pander to Republicans and swing voters. 

So, please? Five minutes? A quickie? 

Sincerely yours,
Barack Obama

Sadly Dear Latina never did get to see Dear Leader.

A few skeptical thoughts about Tim Cook of Apple "coming out"

Photograph by Ashley Gilbertson for Bloomberg Businessweek

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook made national headlines by publicly "coming out" that he was gay.

Let's start with this statement:

So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.

This would be whose god? The god of conservative versions of the world's three monotheisms, whose members think that gayness is some sort of sin?

The god of liberal versions of those monotheisms, whose Santa-kind lovingness is powerless, I guess, to keep believers in conservative versions of those monotheisms from being hateful?

And, that's part of what's wrong with the mush god of liberal monotheism.

And, if gayness is a "gift," then so is straightness, right?

That's at the heart of the statement on Facebook (and Twitter) by philosopher Peter Boghossian:

I've never understood how someone could be proud of being gay. How can one be proud of something one didn't work for?

It's not PC, but it's true IF one has a certain definition of pride. And, in that case, why not "straight pride"?

Even if "gay pride" is in one's status, and not in achievements to become gay, then why is "straight pride" wrong, especially if it includes surviving in today's world of social justice warrior slings and arrows?

This gets back to another criticism of mine of social justice warriors, namely that "no one knows the misery they've seen." The martyrdom hand to back of forehead, etc.

Of course, the social justice warriors are all agog over this statement. I saw this being tut-tutted over by Gnu Atheist SJW Greta Christina, because a Facebook friend had commented on Christina's Facebook post about her blog post. Sorry, even with the ability to put a "no follow" in the HTML, out of principle, I try not to link to hardcore SJWs except when really necessary.

But onward, because I'm nowhere near done with Cook yet. He later says:

Being gay has given me a deeper understanding of what it means to be in the minority and provided a window into the challenges that people in other minority groups deal with every day. It’s made me more empathetic, which has led to a richer life.

Really? So, there's a "gift of gayness"?

Erm, wrong!

I've said time and time again that being an atheist is no guarantor of intellectual superiority or better critical thinking skills. I guess I will now have to add that being gay or lesbian is no guarantor of superior empathy or emotional depth.

Need I mention that paragon of gay emotional sensitivity J. Edgar Hoover?

Anyway, I'm moving on from skeptical thoughts to cynical ones.

Cook notes that people at Apple have known this for years. So, why "come out" now? After all, gay marriage is legal in California. Beyond that, how hard is it, really, to "come out" when you're the CEO of the company? Doubling down on that, how hard is it, really, to "come out" when you're the CEO of a tech company in Silicon Valley?

And, that photo? Is it merely coincidence that there's a sundog in a position to almost give Cook a secular, nay a gay-pride rainbow, version of a halo?

Since Ashley Gilbertson does NOT work for Bloomberg, but for a photo agency, survey (of one) says: Not a coincidence. If you're a professional photographer of that level, something like that doesn't happen by accident.

Per a mobile Net joke, I could say, "There's an app for that," but of course, that would be a cheap and tawdry joke.

Besides, to be non-jokingly cynical, with the CEO of a company with post-Steve Jobs stock price turbulence, etc., there actually may be an app for that. And, an Apple product for that.

Apple Gaydar, on sale soon at your nearest Apple store.

And, I am hoping this gets read enough for SJWs to go agog over that statement, too.

#PZMyers and others: More straw-manning at #FTB in the name of feminism (updated)

I don't know if this is from two of her actual Tweets or not;
that said, there are other pictures, allegedly of Ms. Watson,
badly drunk, exactly fitting this problem.

Updated, Aug. 9, 2014. Please see very good video from Carol Tavris at this year's version of The Amazing meeting, about one-third of the way down.

Updated, Feb. 9, 2015: Total conviction rate on the actual rape charge of people charged with rape is 53 percent. Conviction on any charge is 68 percent. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Does it not make simple sense that women should watch how much they drink in certain social situations they know can become sexually supercharged? Especially, say, at college?

Maybe to most people, but not to all.

At Slate, Emily Yoffe absolutely nails this issue of how young women need to take responsibility and stop getting so drunk in the first place, as part of reducing sexual assault.

And, before Gnus and Atheism Plusers flame me (or others, or Yoffe) here, on Twitter, or elsewhere, she has all the disclaimers about not blaming the victim, etc. She notes what I've said in other links, namely that:

1. Women metabolize alcohol differently and get drunk faster than men;
2. College sexual assaults usually aren't by strangers, but fellow students;

And beyond that to note:

1. Yes means yes and no means no aside, there's no bright line on how drunk is too drunk to influence consent;
2. A rape reported by someone who was drunk is harder to prosecute, for obvious memory reasons;
3. Rohypnol or other "spiking" of drinks isn't the problem; it's women getting this drunk, whether encouraged by a predatory male, as part of a party where both men and women drink to the point of loss of control, or a bit of both.

So, click the link and read, please.

Update, Aug. 9, 2014: And, then, watch this video.



Start at about the 12-minute mark, where a college woman has drunk but consensual sex with a man. She then goes back to her place, texts him to ask if he has a condom, then goes back and has more sex, despite attempts of friends to stop her. She then "cried wolf" the next day claiming lack of memory. The college eventually took no action, saying, in essence, she was too drunk to even know at the time whether or not she was in a state of being able to consent, and the man was too drunk to know that she was that drunk. Tavris goes on to note that the type of feminism that, even in the light of text messages, undercut the claim of "I couldn't help stop drinking," is not the type of feminism she believes in.  End update.

Put, please be considerate to the poor, Atheism Plus nth-wave feminists, who are full of anti-feminist self-disempowering bullshit.  I didn't know that Atheism Plus women were so physically or mentally weak. Apparently, they're incapable of refraining from drinking more alcohol if some man pours it in a glass.

And, as expected, a possible nth-wave feminist has now done the flaming, on Talking Points Memo (ugh), with me saying she's a possible nth-wave feminist by a look at her blog. Or that she writes that everyday gender inequality could cause the next war. Or, the name of that just-linked URL.

And, P.Z. Myers, to whom I refuse to link, has upped the ante on the straw-manning.

Let me present two analogies to you.

1. Somebody writes a column or blog post that advises rich people not to drive Aston Martins into ghettos. Obvious reasons. Author makes multiple statements that this isn't blaming rich people for when they're carjacked, etc. Makes clear that the criminals are responsible for their criminal behavior. But, the author still advises rich people with Aston Martins to use a little common sense. It's called harm reduction.

2. Another person writes a column or blog post that advises women on college campuses not to get so drunk that they're unsure as to whether or not they've given sexual consent, unsure as to how drunk they were when they gave sexual consent, etc. The author makes clear that the person who commits a sexual assault on such a woman (whether the assaultee is a straight male or a gay female — more on that in a minute) is the criminal. The author makes clear that he or she is not blaming the victim.

In both cases, we're talking about sensible harm reduction.

Many people likely would simply nod their heads at No. 1. Yet, No. 2 is already getting straw-manned by the likes of P.Z. Myers (and others). It will likely be strawmanned even more, soon enough, by others at Freethought Blogs.

Yes, I know analogies aren't perfect. But, if one gets past a fixation on richness (or even more on the idea of the rich having "privilege," which alone means Gnu Atheists won't accept this analogy), I think this is a pretty good one.

There are plenty of others that could be spun out, anyway. Like the harm reduction of locking your doors (car or residence). Carrying insurance. Etc.

But, at the Gnu Atheist Asylum, or elsewhere in the Atheism Plus madhouse, where everybody else has "privilege" but the cadres and their leaders don't, such analogies will never gain acceptance.

It's also no wonder P.Z. has "divorced himself" from professional skepticism. He never practices it.

And, speaking of, per past posts by two bloggers at Freethought Blogs:

One more thing, contra the Greta Christinas and Stephanie Zvans at the asylum, women also sexually assault each other. As do men. As do women on men. But, that will never be discussed by either of them.

Moving beyond this, there is also a difference between "blaming the victim" and pointing out that someone may be, in part, "playing the victim." Psychological martyrdom is probably less a lost art than ever in the world of social media.

Let's call it reverse "privilege." Which, like "reverse racism," is ultimately the word it reverses.

Reporting rape to the police is still a somewhat "fraught" thing, though, it's probably less fraught for a woman who was sober and sexually assaulted by a stranger than it is a college-age woman who hit a frat party at college or a friends and friends of friends party out in the country with the explicit purpose of getting drunk and possibly having sex, then changing her mind, and getting sexually assaulted by someone drunk, whether or not the victim was drunk also, half-drunk or whatever.

But, it's less "fraught" than it used to be. Police departments have more female officers than decades past, for one thing. Both male and female officers have at least a modicum of training in tact and sensitivity, compared to years past, and more training in collection of evidence, too. And, while there are horror stories still out there, they do, in general, take rape more seriously than in the past, and pursue cases more aggressively.

Ditto on all of the above for prosecutors.

So, the nth-wave feminists and social justice warriors do nobody a favor by relying on largely (yes, not totally) outmoded images to tell women not to pursue rape cases. I've seen just that advice more than once at Freethought Blogs. And, per a comment thread on Facebook, it may be that there's the martyr card at play here, too.

It's sad. Especially when all of this gets used as gasoline to the matches of men's rights advocates.

Again, per Yoffe's original, I'm not blaming the victim here, on men's rights extremists going nuts. They would anyway. However, there is the parallel issue. And, just like Gnu Atheists seem to kind of like Christian fundamentalists, to the point of finding them as their Tar Baby, I suspect the nth-wave feminists kind of like men's rights extremists in the same way.

That, too, is sad.

Beyond that, there's something that's ironic more than sad, though it has a bit of that. Part of the drunken frat-house culture, and especially the degree women get involved, seems in part due to repressed female sexuality, sexual stigma, and still not being fully detached from sexual stereotypes. For the women who straw-man this issue, play the martyr card, etc., it's definitely more ironic than sad, though. These aren't young Christians, whether at Christian or secular college, who . These are the Atheism Plusers, who have proclaimed they want to take the social crusade angle of Gnu Atheism even further, and to the degree sexuality stigma comes from Christian background, as may ("privilege" drivel aside) chauvinism, patriarchy, whatnot, shouldn't the empowerment of Plusism have them moving beyond this?

That said, I don't think this is always about sexual repression. At the risk of mansplaining, in some cases, such as Ms. Watson, there's probably other issues. With some minority percentage of women, I believe there's psychological gamesmanship afoot. Now, as to what drives such gamesmanship, it's probably pretty individualized.

Add to the straw-manning simple trolling by Fauxthoughter Jason Thibeaualt.

===

And, although the drinking didn't go too far, and it wasn't a frat-house type scene, alcohol (as well as abuse of standing as a boss), appears to have played some role in the stunning (but not quite shocking) story of problems of former Scientific American blogging chief Bora Zivkovic. And here, it's even clearer there are other dynamics at play among the nth-wave feminist crowd et al. Zvan rightfully notes, in the motorboat wake of this, that harassment can be done by women, too (I'm shocked to hear that out of her mouth) but, then goes on to do what is arguably "slut shaming." She'd surely call it that if someone else did it. It's also possibly a form of online bullying to keep non nth-ers in line.

===

Once again, college people, too much drinking, some sort of sexual activity, problematic memory, and a rape claim that didn't play out, at least against the person in the spotlight. Once again, social justice warriors, maybe start your focus on ... alcohol? And, as for motive? SJW folks, this one's clear on at least a possible motive. Monetary payout from a presumed first-round NFL draft pick.

Will the #SJW petard crank up for #PZMyers?

P.Z. Myers/Wikipedia photo

SJW, for those who don't follow Gnu Atheism and its offshoot, Atheism Plus, or non-secularized versions of politically correct "liberalism," is Social Justice Warriors, like Brittany Cooper and others who recently wanted Stephen Colbert's head on a platter.

P.Z. Myers is P.Z. Myers, a curmudgeonly Gnu who, though of an older age, nonetheless has an emotional foot in the camp of the Plusers, too.

And, why would P.Z. get hoisted by the SJW petard?

Calling hyperconsertives at his faculty home, University of Minnesota-Morris, "assholes" and advocating the disposal of their student newspaper, as reported by Faux News.

It's probably not criminal, though depending on the exact wording of various statements of his, and any meetings he had with any students who engaged in the theft after his initial statements, a prosecutor could at least threaten an "engaging in organized criminal activity" charge or whatever the similar is up in Minnesota.

But that's not where the petard is.

Instead, he may well have violated the faculty code of conduct. Beyond that, he may have officially "intimidated" students in some way. That would be doubly so if any of the writers/editors for this student paper are in any of his classes. You know what would be HI-LAR-I-OUS? If these conservatives do some SJW intelectual judo on him and make him undergo sensitivity training.

As I now read his blog post that appeared to start it all, that SJW petard would be well deserved. He doesn't know what the First Amendment means. The paper is offensive, offensive indeed. However, the First Amendment protects the right to engage in offensive speech.

As for his claim he was only advocating the university not allow the paper on campus? Beyond missing both freedom of speech AND freedom of assembly issues at a public university, here's what he actually blogged:

I would advocate the disposal of their flyers if the Ku Klux Klan started papering our campus, and likewise, the North Star has worn out its welcome and must go. Treat their scattered papers as hate-filled trash and dispose of it appropriately.

Now, one can't prove that he was encouraging students to do this "disposal," so criminal charges would be very hard. On the other hand, beyond sensitivity training for violating any faculty code of conduct? Assuming that Minnesota does not require jury unanimity in civil suits, and has a lower burden of proof than in criminal law, Pee Zee could be facing more than just "sensitivity training" and a slap on the hand from the dean of administration or whomever.

Linking to this is P.Z.'s latest attempt at self-defense

And, he's doubled down on not understanding either one of those First Amendment freedoms in his post-Faux post.

As for whether any of this "should" happen? Given that P.Z. has admitted to facing an (allegedly) unfounded accusation of sexual harassment, yet continues to say we should unreservedly believe people making such claims, the "should" of sensitivity training should happen indeed, in my book.

That said, would he actually learn from this?

Of course, not, other than to play the martyr card, like SJWs in general.

And, now, by posting a recent XKCD comic, PZ is tripling down on his First Amendment stupidity.

The same bottom left and bottom center panels that PZ wants to apply to wingnut students at Minnesota-Morris and some of their ravings apply to him and some of his.

As for the hate emails he's getting, of course, nobody deserves that. But, at least on any of them short of death threats, at the same time, Myers is probably "wearing" them as some sort of Red-A Atheism  Badge of Courage.

===

That said, were I the John Rawls of Minnesota-Morris, here is how I would pass out both distributive and retributive justice.

First, I would make P.Z. undergo sensitivity training at the hands of fellow atheist, Jesus mythicist, hardcore conservative and apparent racialist Robert M. Price, until P.Z. signed a sworn statement admitting that not all, or nearly all, atheists are liberals.

I would then make some of the worst wingnut students undergo sensitivity training by community organizers in Minneapolis -- in the ghetto there.

Next, I would require their paper to give P.Z. the entire front page for one issue.

And, I'd require P.Z. to give them a blog post of at least 1,000 words, and "pinned" to the top of his blog for a week straight.

And, no, this isn't written as pure sarcasm. Were I in place to do so, I'd hand out actual sentencings like this.

===

The part immediately above relates to crime in general. How much of a sentence should be punitive and how much should be rehabilitative? We should strive for rehabilitation in general, but in a particular case, we have to depend on a judge's assessment of how likely rehabilitation is to be achieved. If the judge then thinks a sentence should be primarily punitive, the exact nature of its punishment could theoretically be made more severe in exchange for shorter duration, if the criminal committed what is generally considered a nonviolent crime.

Example? As part of parole, require a Wall Street fraud artist to work at a soup kitchen, a halfway house, etc. Require an arsonist, if a prison workshop can be properly made over, to recreate exactly what she burned.

Check your #privilege

No, this is not another post about the so-called "social justice warriors," despite the hashtag in the header. Well, it's not primarily about them, but they'll eventually get worked into the picture.

Rather, it's about who most exercises "privilege" in modern-day America. And, I'd say it's not whites as whites, males as males, or straights as straights.

Rather, it's Christians as Christians, specifically, the mix of fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals and conservative Catholics. Whether it's the #PrayForSouthKorea hashtag on Twitter over the recent ferry sinking, or a bunch of evangelicals pretending to refute Bart Ehrman's new book "because the bible says its so" when they've done nothing of the sort, it's the assumption that a conservative version of Christianity is the default version of Christianity and the default version of religion in general in this country. (I'm not counting cultural "Christianists" like Bill O'Reilly, who is probably not that much more Christian than Samuel Huntington.)

It usually doesn't infuriate me, unlike the way it seems to do so to the atheist version of social justice warriors, or Gnu Atheists and Atheism Plusers in general. Rather, it leads to more of a sad laugh.

Among those Christians trying to gin up fake culture wars, or pretend that they have no responsibility for actual ones, most such people seem to be blandly and blindly unaware that they're engaging in privileged stances.

And, the way to deal with people like this is to first try to enlighten them, make them aware of their unawareness. Now that often may not work. But, it's the first thing to try, rather than berating them.

Berating such people assumes one has the right, er ... the privilege! of being a berater. As well as doing little to no good. Per the old academic left-liberal literary theory political correctness mash that fermented social justice warriors, you see how easy it is for someone to go "meta" on you?

Atheist SJWs might try turning the mirror around, and ask how much they've liked Christians who don't care about the issue of privilege willingly berating them.

See, I told you we'd get to the SJWs.

So, atheistic types? I've said it before. If you don't want to be a mirror image of conservative Christians, and don't want them to be your tar baby, the ball's in your court.

Beyond that, every one of us has at least a bit of privilege vis-a-vis one other person in the world. A great many of us have, in some part of our lives, even for those who are of a racial or ethnic minority, women, gay/lesbian, etc., have some aspect of privilege vis-a-vis a few other people at least. (A good example of "never assume" would be the number of men who have eating disorders.)

I don't claim to know what it's like to be black, or Hispanic. But, I have lived in black plurality and black majority towns. I'd like to think I've learned a little bit about what it's like to be a minority in a non-minority society at least. But, I'll never know perfectly. And, even among people who are aware that they're not fully enlightened, it's a struggle to get them interested; that's kind of what Perry's getting at.

Otherwise, none of us can ever perfectly know another ethnic, sex, sexuality or other group, or another individual from that group. Indeed, we'll never know our own selves perfectly.

Rodney King famously asked, "Can't we all just get along?" No, not perfectly, because, beyond the issues above that can be barriers, we're all individuals.

Can we, at least, reduce how much many of us don't get along? That's more likely and more possible. And more reasonable. Beyond the fires of idealism comes the progress of realism. At the same time, we don't have to have minimalistic definitions of realism.

Back to the original point in a wandering post, though.

Conservative Christians who do semi-deliberately speak from a point of privilege will ultimately result to one of two answers to this.

One is the "success gospel." You're right and doing well because you're propperly aligned with god. (Unfortunately, many a New Ager holds to a more pantheistic version of this.)

The other is that there's no Jew nor Gentile, etc., so all current-world differences are virtually erased now in religion and totally will be so thereafter.

The first? We saw that become a new opiate of the masses in the run-up to the Great Recession. The second? It's the usual answer when people complain about the first.

If we could get a few conservative Christians to have just an ounce or two more of honesty and self-insight, we might start something.

And, if not? While I don't go out of my way to berate conservative Christians, when I see a "PrayForX" hashtag on Twitter, I usually give one, or both, of two responses, using the same hashtag:
1. To which god are "we" praying?
2. If a god didn't stop tragedy X in the first place, why should I pray to he/she/it now?

Warrning: contains trigger alerts

I guess I should go "meta" with this, noting that this blog post has further trigger alerts inside that of the header.

And, if you're worried about trigger alerts, I guess I should make a trigger alert out of that. And, should probably go "meta" about that, too.

What ... er ... triggered this deep concern of mine?

The photo at left, which is about CuriOdyssey (cute name) and was blogged about by Gnu Atheist leading light Jerry Coyne, to me highlights the Absurdistan in which "trigger alerts" generally dwell. Specifically, the bottom line is what's concerning to me.

In the back of my mind, for some time, I've thought about posting a "trigger alert" of some sort on every blog post I do about the "social justice warriors" movement, most notably its Atheism Plus incarnation. Warning: Atheism Plus blog tag link may trigger light-headed dysintellectualism.

As for Coyne, I don't know how much he, like biologist and Gnu Atheist buddy P.Z. Myers, dips at least a bit into the SJW angle, but this blog post of his gave me a good entree to the subject in general.

That all said, how and why have trigger alerts entered Absurdistan?

First, they're often about such minor issues as to trivialize the whole idea of trigger alerts. We probably haven't plumbed the depths yet, though. I'm still waiting for a blog post about "gluten sensitivity" to have a trigger alert like this: "Warning — this blog post contains a picture of bread; this could cause a psychosomatic reaction in people with gluten sensitivity." Or, per the photo ...

Second, they presume that all (sexual abuse, rape, war combat) survivors, if that's the target audience, will react the same to the material at hand. Related to that, amongst the more tribalist of social justice warriors, they assume that all members of the target audience SHOULD react in the same way. And, that's simply not true.

The worst iterations of that way of thought perpetuate stereotypes. And, since SJWs are supposed to be about deflating stereotypes as part of their work, that's another reason for them to stop.

Until we get to that point, though? (That's if we ever do, of course.)

We need more of those "trigger alerts," to finish trivializing the fair degree of trivialization that "Trigger alert" has already been put through. To riff on Paul Harvey? "Stand by for trigger alerts!"

Beyond that, some potential triggers are GOOD, even if gruesome.

Let's take war coverage in the American mainstream media. Photo and video coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have generally been much less graphic than, say, Vietnam. When graphic injuries and death have been displayed, it's always been about American soldiers. Doorknob forbid we show body splatter after a Predator drone hits an innocent Afghan wedding party.

Social Justice Warriors, we have a failure to communicate

To me, even more than being wrong about some science and social science issues or having a huge lack of skepticism, this is the single biggest issue within the "social justice warrior" movement within Atheism Plus. (I'm halfway tempted to say that it IS Atheism Plus, but I think there's a minority there who, while believing that atheism has not yet done enough in the way of social justice, and either ignorant of or not wanting to identify as "secular humanist," yet have not jumped off the deep end.)

That said, a recent blog post by Massimo Pigliucci, about American Atheists' President David Silverman's statements at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, and my own blogging about that, exemplify this. So does seeing them come pretty close to destroying a Facebook group, as I blogged here.

As I see it, many of the SJWs carry presumptions into most of their social justice communications. And, they're as presupposition laden as most groups who willingly stake out one polarity on an issue or set of issues that's really a continuum.

For instance, on sexual assault issues, questioning whether women shouldn't monitor their own alcohol intake, especially at places like college fraternities, will lead to you being labeled part of the rape culture, blaming women, etc. Do it more than once, and you'll likely be assumed to be part of the men's rights movement.

Make jokes about this, and you'll be assumed to be a cyberstalker or something, if you're not careful. I have been.

Part of the issue, though, is not a failure to become better communicators, or not recognizing that one is bringing presuppositions to the table. Rather, it's not wanting to actually communicate, rather than pronounce in a monologue. Question that, and your Twitter handle gets put on the Block Bot auto-blocking add-on. Or you get auto-blocked from commenting on blogs. Or, as Greg Laden did with me years ago, you get threatened with removal from the entire Internet, per this blog post:

Failure to adhere to these rules may lead to your permanent banning from this blog, and if you don't adhere to that, you will be banned from the entire internet.

Yes, Greg, you may have your rules for your blog, but you're not Tim Berners-Lee or ICANN.

That said, behind this, I see an issue of martyrology that rivals that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and likely for similar, in-group tribal reasons. Be a good martyr and other group members support you for the degree of your effort and commitment.

Is there any cure for this? Time, possibly, although I don't guarantee that. Some 150 years after Charles Russell, JWs still like getting doors slammed in their faces. Some people like to be martyrs. Some of them, unfortunately, learned that martyrdom has passive power. Sadly, some of them learned that as part of childhood.

That, in turn, leads to another presupposition, namely, the one that nobody else can understand your troubles.

Well, first of all, you're assuming that your troubles are worse than those of others who may, at least at first, want to listen sympathetically to you. That's another conversation killer.

It's also a trust-killer. Maybe I actually do have "issues" worse than yours, or did in the past. Maybe I've had pains and hardships you don't know about. But, if you continue to try to maximize yours, and as part of that, discount or even dismiss mine, again, you're shutting down conversation.

More than that, you're shutting down trust. And, that's the real bottom line.

I simply don't trust these social justice warrior types, not to hear any real personal details of my life. I don't trust them, and doubt I will for the rest of my life.

Related to that? Although she's not an SJW, or Atheism Pluser, as far as I can tell, Karen Stollznow had alleged that Ben Radford had engaged in sexual harassment against her. The SJWs were all over promoting this one. And Stollznow has now retracted those claims. That said, the letter may be part of a legal settlement; Radford officially filed suit over her claims on Feb. 17 of this year. Anyway, it's clear that this is all clear as mud.

Also interesting, per comment 45 on a blog post by Radford, P.Z. Myers, the grand poobah of Gnu Atheist blogging, has himself been the victim of a false rape claim. Also, what the hell was Radford doing writing a blog about false rape claims 9 days after filing suit alleging exactly that? That's as clear as Louisiana blackland gumbo soil mud.

(Note: The previous 2 grafs are why I don't identify with modern "scientific" skepticism as a movement any more than I do Gnu Atheism/Atheism Plus.)

And, besides.

Given that much of the SJW movement's effort is focused on sexuality, it sounds like lesbians, and even more, gays, still have work to do in being accepting of bisexuals. Always start at home. Addressing this, then Rebecca Watson winking at men like Sarah Palin, would be a nice start on that.

Once again, #AtheismPlus and its #SocialJusticeWarriors ruin something

A couple of weeks ago, a Facebook friend of mine founded a group called "Occupy Skepticism." It was designed to shed a spotlight on how some atheists and some movement skeptics wrongly don't focus enough eyeballs on the problem of poverty, economic justice, and related issues.

I was one of the first seven or eight to join. It's not like I don't have enough other Facebook groups in which I'm moderately to minimally active, but what the hell.

Well, soon thereafter, several Atheism Plus-type social justice warriors also joined. (A couple had been there before me

A day or so later, one of them made her presence quite vocally known. And eventually got an amen chorus of support.

The founder posted a piece written by Chris Hedges. The SJW leader soon thereafter accused Hedges of being a "cis" person and a "mansplainer" who could never really understand social justice issues of non-white males.

The tribalism, jargon and all, of the social justice warriors on full display, along with their martyrology, of how when they're misunderstood, or attacked for a flame war like this, it's all the other side's fault. Wunderbar.

So, I responded. And, of course, came under attack myself. And, was basically told it was all my fault, and that, if I didn't like it, I could leave the group even though I'd been there first.

The facts of the matter are that:

First, ALL of us have unique life experiences of some sort. Many of us have some sort of unique experiences that make us sensitive to some social needs. That includes white males.

Assuming some people don't have such sensitivity is itself a form of stereotyping, first.

Starting your first dialogue with or about people based on such assumptions is itself a form of hostility.

I don't expect true SJWs to accept either idea under this first point; I'm just stating it for the blogging record.

To extend the SJW line of thinking here to its logical conclusion, if I may be so presumptuous as to mention them and logic in the same breath, we should all just become the sociological version of solipsists and claim that nobody else in this whole world will ever be able to understand me, so, when they try and inevitably fail, I can accuse them of #splaining.

Second, and speaking of presumptuousness? These folks strike me as being like the Religious Right on reproductive choice, in their degree of presumptuousness. That's specifically in the presumptuousness of the Religious Right thinking that no woman who has ever had an abortion, or is considering one, ever thinks/thought about the psychological factors of terminating a pregancy, her personal religious, spiritual or philosophical stances, including but not limited to ethical ones, and more.

To riff on the old spiritual, they're singing "Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody but a Pluser." Bullshit.

Third and related to the larger thread, is the old "you catch more flies with honey." Offering an ultimatum to someone and expecting them to respond is a prime example. Oh, and since I know how much the SJW types love the word "privilege," the instigator of this has got a snootful of that to actually think that I, or someone else, would kowtow to such an ultimatum.

Another of the amen chorus, telling the moderator he's running the group wrong, falls into pretty much the same category. Boy, that's rich. If you really don't like it, go start your own Facebook group.

Speaking of that and bullshit, said person, on her own FB page, referenced the old "you catch even more flies with shit" line. If that were true in this case, Pluser-land would be Lord of the Flies, with colonies growing in Rebecca Watson's winking eyelids.

Anyway, the lead chorister of the Plusers in this Facebook group, who started the process, has left the group. So have others, including one that called me part of the Slymepit (a loose grouping of hardcore "men's rights" advocates, scare quotes intended) just for pointing out what I did. Maybe that will lead others from not taking the lead on future jargon-laden assumptions.

Fourth and related to that? Just as the older, in Internet reverse dog years ages, Gnu Atheist movement seems to need the Religious Right as a tar baby (and vice versa), the Plusers seem to need the Slymepit type folks as a tar baby (and vice versa). It's easy to find enemies if you're determined to carry a bushel of belligerence into new situations.

I'm not sure a lot of them are conscious of this. Maybe they were at one time, and now it's faded. However, in many cases, I think there's such a martyrology that they never were fully conscios of their part in creating it. Like Watson and her winks.

I think things are starting to clear out, and it's probably better a dust-up like this happened sooner rather than later. However, at least one new one has come in.

So, I say eff it. Every one that opens their mouths and indicates they're a Social Justice Warrior? Immediate Facebook block. I have no desire to waste any more time or energy on them.

Here's someone who is female and multi-racial who agrees with a lot of the problems of the SJWs.

So? I don't go out of my way to be uncivil to the Plusers, especially when in SJW mode, but I don't go out of my way to be civil, either.

You want civility? Under some conditions, you have to earn it. This is another example of "fool me once ..." or, in biological terms, of reciprocal altruism and tit-for-tat game-theorizing played out.

Gnu Atheists - the gnu fundamentalists

Sorry, or rather, "sorry," to a Facebook friend like Dan Fincke, but it's not just liberal Christian theologians who call Gnu Atheists a new version of fundamentalists. It's also many of us non-Gnu Atheists who have no desire to be "in others faces" about our atheism or otherwise emulate some of the group psychology, sociology, and even psychology of religion that fundamentalists do.

Dan does acknowledge that, in a good piece here.

That said, my post has a different angle than his.

I've said before in various spots that I regard Gnu Atheists and Christian fundamentalists as mutual tar babies. And, I'm far from alone. Philosopher Albert Camus said that a certain variety of atheists (the "antitheist" that Fincke used is perhaps even more apropos) need to have a god to rebel against.

That said, like most things in life, the Gnu Atheist vs. Plain Jane Atheist (or intra-atheist "Nones," if you will) differentiation isn't two polarities, but rather two ends of a continuum. I wouldn't consider Dan as far to the end of Gnudom as, say, Jerry Coyne or P.Z. Myers, or Chris Hitchens from whom he used the antitheist term. And, I wouldn't put myself as far on the Plain Jane end as Mr. Faitheist, Chris Steadman or people like him.

I would, though, put Dan on the Gnu side of the continuum, scoring a fair degree above (or below) the 50 midpoint, while I'd put myself as far on the other side.

The issue with Gnus and fundamentalism is exacerbated (and, I use that word, not "compounded," VERY deliberately) by the Atheism Plus movement. The best parallel from the Christian fundamentalism tar baby I can think of is fundamentalists who also insist you have to speak in tongues as part of your fundamentalism.

And, Dan, I wouldn't be so virulent at times in my take on Gnus if y'all would just find a way to excommunicate Plusers. But, I don't think most of you want to do that, let alone not being able.

Anyway, another difference is that we Plain Janes (excepting the Faitheists, who have their "branding" to do as much as Gnus) aren't out to convert anybody. We just want to be let alone to be nontheistic in peace. If we see a First Amendment issue that needs addressing, we'll handle our protests via the ACLU, or even that "accommodationist" group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

A couple of Gnu-defenders, one in particular, on Massimo Pigliucci's blog asks why my animus. I already mentioned part of it -- the Pluser storm troopers. And I use that deliberately too.

Beyond that, but related to it? A lot of Gnus, including Gnu leaders, don't know philosophy that well. (Dan, whether it relates to being less than hardcore Gnu or not, is an exception.) Most also don't know religion that well, or in tar baby syndrome, simplistically boil it all down to fundamentalism. Dan, per your Facebook and blog post about liberal theologians, there's your answer right there.

But, you might claim, "Not all Gnus are like that! It's a stereotype."

No less of one than Gnus, on average, make of religion in general. If the shoe fits, wear it, even if it pinches.

And, that relates to the final angles.

If you're really about evangelizing non-atheists, or just marketing atheism better, y'all still aren't remembering the old cliche: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." (You catch more yet with bullshit, but that's for another blog post.) By all means, continue!

And, related to that, some of you, namely the American Atheists President David Silverman, kind of give atheism a black eye.

Good example? Chris Hedges, who doesn't distinguish between Gnu and other atheists because of some rough treatment he got from some Gnus, and now blasts atheism in general. Yes, that's partially on him for not being more discerning, but it had its starting point with Gnu Atheists.

You may still catch a few flies with vinegar, but you're sure to drive them away with sulfuric acid, you know?

Well, maybe you don't. Or maybe you don't care.

Gee, the parallels continue. Now we're almost into Rev. Fred Phelps territory.

See both of you sides in the funny pages.

===

But I don't want to end there.

Behind the matter is that not all of us atheists make atheism so central a focus of our lives.

That, in turn, is why I mentioned "atheist evangelism." There are non-Gnus who are also serious about it, like Chris Stedman and his merry band of Faitheists are very much into this, and with honey rather than vinegar.

But that's why Faitheists aren't the best example of the other end of a continuum from Gnus. Maybe we need to update the idea of a continuum on this issue to three corners and sides of a triangle or something.

I'm no more interested in being an evangelist for Faitheism than I am for Gnu Atheism. (Regular, long-term readers of this blog know that I'm no more a fan of Faitheism than Gnu Atheism, too.)

At the same time, atheism just isn't that much a part of my life as it is for Gnus (Or, maybe, than for Faitheists, either.) And, occasional blogging on the wrongs of hardcore Gnus aside, being a Faitheist, or Plain Jane Atheist, counterweight, just isn't that big an issue to me, either. Liberal politics, third parties, classical music, St. Louis Cardinals baseball, environmentalism and counterfactual history all rank higher.

And, there are plenty of others of us who are "nones" inside the world of atheism. 

==

In hindsight, there's probably one other thing that distinguishes true blue Gnus from the rest of us, and that's a denial that life is in some way tragic.

Note that I did NOT say that life is meaningless without religious structure, or a belief in a deity or higher power.

I said that life is tragic. And, I've heard/read several Gnus reject this.

But, as philosopher Albert Camus and astronomer Steven Weinberg both know and have affirmed, life IS tragic. Exquisitely so. Gnus who fail to accept that, to me, exclude themselves from the tradition and flow of true humanism.

But, back to Dan's main thrust. A lot of Gnus, when they don't lump fundamentalist Christians (and this applies in spades to Muslims) with the more liberal types, often "demand" that the more liberal types "denounce" the rest, then overlook how much they do.

Well, when I blog about Gnus, it's usually a "denouncing," and for similar reasons.

THe #SJW #privilege backlash is how I know Chris Arnade isn't all wet

From  XKCD website. Added here because Atheism Plus and
Gnu Atheism types love to trot it out as a sort of shield, a
"no true Scotsman" claim that they're not annoying.

For those of you not too familiar with him, Chris Arnade is an atheist. Who used to work on Wall Street, with a Ph.D. Who now works with homeless people not too, too far from Wall Street.

And, via his work with them, and the seeming degree of attachment many of them have to religious belief, has led him to call atheism an "intellectual luxury for the wealthy." Which certainly isn't a life of "privilege" and, per the SJW hashtag of "social justice warriors," is working for social justice.

Here's the heart of his piece:

(The homeless) have their faith because what they believe in doesn't judge them. Who am I to tell them that what they believe is irrational? Who am I to tell them the one thing that gives them hope and allows them to find some beauty in an awful world is inconsistent? I cannot tell them that there is nothing beyond this physical life. It would be cruel and pointless. 

In these last three years, out from behind my computers, I have been reminded that life is not rational and that everyone makes mistakes. Or, in Biblical terms, we are all sinners. 

We are all sinners. On the streets the addicts, with their daily battles and proximity to death, have come to understand this viscerally. Many successful people don't. Their sense of entitlement and emotional distance has numbed their understanding of our fallibility. 

Soon I saw my atheism for what it is: an intellectual belief most accessible to those who have done well.   ...

I look back at my 16-year-old self and see Preacher Man and his listeners differently. I look at the fragile women praying and see a mother working a minimum wage custodial job, trying to raise three children alone. Her children's father off drunk somewhere. I look at the teenager fingering a small cross and see a young woman, abused by a father addicted to whatever, trying to find some moments of peace. I see Preacher Man himself, living in a beat up shack without electricity, desperate to stay clean, desperate to make sense of a world that has given him little. 

They found hope where they could.

I hadn't intended to write a full blog post about it. I thought it was interesting, but not something I totally agreed with, though I understood to some degree where he was coming from, or where I interpreted him as coming from.

I called it a version of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In other words, after people get a stable, secure situation in regard to food and shelter, then safety, then social belonging, after that, they're going to feel comfortable — and have the mental energy — to question old beliefs and old values systems.

I agree with him, and against some, though not all Gnu Atheists, that H. sapiens isn't all that rational, even when we're higher up Maslow's hierarchy.

And, this is nothing new. Look at black slaves who adopted their owners' Christianity.

That said, it hasn't stopped the Atheism Plus junior subset of Gnu Atheists from jumping all over Arnade.

And, the one that has topped off the dogpile, all while insisting she's not writing about any one person?

Quelle horreur! It's Stephanie Zvan.

To refute just a couple of the hints she makes, even if at no one in particular, whether always to be believed or not:
1. Arnade never said that religion had no connection with predatory capitalism. That said, the claim of religion is usually just a fig leaf.
2. Unearned authority is a problem far outside of religious groups. Like Gnu Atheism. Besides, in many religious groups, the members of that group have no problem with believing their leaders have earned said authority.
3. I'm sure that if Gnu Atheism gets big enough, by the law of averages, it will have its own scandals. Only Gnu Atheists, even more than many an intensely inward group, will probably trot out "no true Scotsman" claims enough to earn themselves a listing in places like Skeptic's Dictionary under that entry.

Add to this somebody on Facebook using a compounded version of the magical word privilege in a post about Arnade's piece, and barf.

Meanwhile, let's ignore people like that and get back to people like Pamela J. Stubbart, with a more nuanced critique:

Frankly, Chris, I think that your piece has more to do with sig­nal­ing con­cern for the dis­ad­van­taged (and sig­nal­ing that you’re not a dick like Richard Dawkins) than it has to do with athe­ism per se. Not that these are bad things to do — but it doesn’t seem to me that your athe­ism was chal­lenged at all. As far as I can tell, you just revised your opin­ions regard­ing the dif­fer­ing value of truth in the con­text of var­i­ous kinds of people’s lives. (That would make a slightly less catchy title, how­ever). We can agree that it would be “cruel and point­less” to try to talk these peo­ple out of their the­ism. But label­ing athe­ism itself an “intel­lec­tual lux­ury” con­sti­tutes a near­sighted attempt to imbue athe­ism with the con­no­ta­tion that it’s unnec­es­sary and friv­o­lous. Please don’t for­get that in other con­texts, the non-religious do impor­tant work towards cur­tail­ing religiously-motivated harms (female gen­i­tal muti­la­tion, any­one? allow­ing chil­dren with eas­ily cured med­ical con­di­tions to die?) At those times, it is keep­ing quiet about unjus­ti­fied reli­gious claims (“think­ing dif­fer­ently” from athe­ists!) which would be cruel.

I could largely agree with that. Unfortunately, I don't think most Gnu-type atheists, and certainly not the subset of them Atheism Plusers, would agree with Stubbart.

Knowing what I do about the world of addiction, I will say that, in part because these alternatives aren't recognized by the court system, and in part for other, more sociological reasons, secular alternatives to 12-Step addiction support draw a different crowd.

Plus, also indirectly back to Zvan, and others.

Yes, atheists/secularists donate food to food pantries, and other "street level" support. However, secularists don't have their own homeless shelters, at least not that I'm aware of. Not all shelters that do exist are run by religiously oriented private organizations, of course, but many are. And, even those that aren't, in working with alcoholics and addicts, offer up the religious nostrums of the 12 Steps, in part because, again, they don't know the alternatives. 

In short, to bring out another psychological phrase, if Arnade "confronts" the homeless he helps with the illogic, and lack of empirical basis, of their beliefs, he risks giving them a massive case of cognitive dissonance. As many of the homeless are not only alcoholics or addicts, but "dual diagnosis" folks, this is about the last thing they need.

At the same time, Arnade's piece almost makes it sound like he's "deconverting." I asked him that on Twitter, and I'm putting it in here now. 

Why do I say that? The middle section of the block quote from above:
In these last three years, out from behind my computers, I have been reminded that life is not rational and that everyone makes mistakes. Or, in Biblical terms, we are all sinners.

We are all sinners. On the streets the addicts, with their daily battles and proximity to death, have come to understand this viscerally. Many successful people don't. Their sense of entitlement and emotional distance has numbed their understanding of our fallibility.
Sorry, but you, without the burden of being on the first or second level of Maslow's pyramid, have just made a logical/empirical disconnect, as I see it.

First, sinners implies sin. Sin is normally associated with religion. It's a word with all sorts of connotative overtones. It implies either a theistic god or a an impersonal karmic metaphysical force judging sin.

And, it sounds like it was written deliberately, as a face-slap, especially with the addition of the phrase "Biblical terms." (Having done that at times myself, I know it when I see it.)

Second, it seems to imply all atheists are part of the "successful people." Commenters on Zvan's page point out that's not true. And, I know that myself. I'm a community newspaper editor with extra money in the bank, but I'm nowhere near rich, and I personally know secularists worse off.

Third, per what I said before about "dual diagnosis," many of the people on the street have been sinned against much more than being sinners. Without causing them cognitive dissonance, you could at least lighten the religious chains for them by giving them some version of understanding of that, even if you have to still fertilize it with some religious manure.

Fourth, related to Nos. 2 and 3, it seems to imply most atheists are more like this than like you are.

This all said, Arnade promises a more nuanced follow-up.

I'd love to see it. I'd also love to see a more friendly reception for him from the social justice warriors, too. And, yes, I would note that, too. See three paragraphs above.