In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Awesome comment.


That is all.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Sexism is tolerated in our culture in a way that racism against African Americans is not. People who would never dream of saying 'nigger' in public have no problem saying bitch or cunt or raghead or fag. It's not because these people are bad, but because these people have been taught by society that such things can be said without fear of judgement or reprisal.

When these people do receive judgement and reprisal, they become highly defensive, because in their own minds, they aren't treating women with prejudice, they are playing by the rules sanctioned by the larger society. It's far easier for them to believe that you are uppity, oversensitive and politically correct than for them to believe they might have prejudice in their heart, but the fact that they are so vigilant in their response to you suggests to me that on some subconscious level, they suspect you are correct.

I want to reiterate what berticus said, in that this room features a bunch of white males trying to lecture a female on what does and does not constitute sexism. For my fellow dudes in this category, might I suggest you shut the fuck up and listen. bareboards isn't sharing a political or religious opinion here, she is expressing her genuine reaction to prejudice against her gender. It's not an opinion, it's a lesson.

Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is culturally acceptable or not. Ask a 'fag' or a 'bitch' or a 'raghead' if you want a broader perspective on what it feels like to be on the receiving end culturally sanctioned prejudice.

I agree that there is little you can do to change culture specific prejudice, but expressing yourself in a sift talk is a good thing. If people want to ridicule you for it, then fuck them. Doing the right thing is doing the right thing, even if you have no chance in hell at making a difference. In fact, I find it noble when someone does the right thing in spite of futility.

*quality for your true grit

Awesome comment.


That is all.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Sexism is tolerated in our culture in a way that racism against African Americans is not. People who would never dream of saying 'nigger' in public have no problem saying bitch or cunt or raghead or fag. It's not because these people are bad, but because these people have been taught by society that such things can be said without fear of judgement or reprisal.

When these people do receive judgement and reprisal, they become highly defensive, because in their own minds, they aren't treating women with prejudice, they are playing by the rules sanctioned by the larger society. It's far easier for them to believe that you are uppity, oversensitive and politically correct than for them to believe they might have prejudice in their heart, but the fact that they are so vigilant in their response to you suggests to me that on some subconscious level, they suspect you are correct.

I want to reiterate what berticus said, in that this room features a bunch of white males trying to lecture a female on what does and does not constitute sexism. For my fellow dudes in this category, might I suggest you shut the fuck up and listen. bareboards isn't sharing a political or religious opinion here, she is expressing her genuine reaction to prejudice against her gender. It's not an opinion, it's a lesson.

Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is culturally acceptable or not. Ask a 'fag' or a 'bitch' or a 'raghead' if you want a broader perspective on what it feels like to be on the receiving end culturally sanctioned prejudice.

I agree that there is little you can do to change culture specific prejudice, but expressing yourself in a sift talk is a good thing. If people want to ridicule you for it, then fuck them. Doing the right thing is doing the right thing, even if you have no chance in hell at making a difference. In fact, I find it noble when someone does the right thing in spite of futility.

*quality for your true grit

It's nice to see you take the highroad when there's no political price to pay. Wish you would've done so when your party rejoiced in an assassination and the complete skirting of due process and human rights.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Sexism is tolerated in our culture in a way that racism against African Americans is not. People who would never dream of saying 'nigger' in public have no problem saying bitch or cunt or raghead or fag. It's not because these people are bad, but because these people have been taught by society that such things can be said without fear of judgement or reprisal.

When these people do receive judgement and reprisal, they become highly defensive, because in their own minds, they aren't treating women with prejudice, they are playing by the rules sanctioned by the larger society. It's far easier for them to believe that you are uppity, oversensitive and politically correct than for them to believe they might have prejudice in their heart, but the fact that they are so vigilant in their response to you suggests to me that on some subconscious level, they suspect you are correct.

I want to reiterate what berticus said, in that this room features a bunch of white males trying to lecture a female on what does and does not constitute sexism. For my fellow dudes in this category, might I suggest you shut the fuck up and listen. bareboards isn't sharing a political or religious opinion here, she is expressing her genuine reaction to prejudice against her gender. It's not an opinion, it's a lesson.

Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is culturally acceptable or not. Ask a 'fag' or a 'bitch' or a 'raghead' if you want a broader perspective on what it feels like to be on the receiving end culturally sanctioned prejudice.

I agree that there is little you can do to change culture specific prejudice, but expressing yourself in a sift talk is a good thing. If people want to ridicule you for it, then fuck them. Doing the right thing is doing the right thing, even if you have no chance in hell at making a difference. In fact, I find it noble when someone does the right thing in spite of futility.

*quality for your true grit

Sexism is tolerated in our culture in a way that racism against African Americans is not. People who would never dream of saying 'nigger' in public have no problem saying bitch or cunt or raghead or fag. It's not because these people are bad, but because these people have been taught by society that such things can be said without fear of judgement or reprisal.

When these people do receive judgement and reprisal, they become highly defensive, because in their own minds, they aren't treating women with prejudice, they are playing by the rules sanctioned by the larger society. It's far easier for them to believe that you are uppity, oversensitive and politically correct than for them to believe they might have prejudice in their heart, but the fact that they are so vigilant in their response to you suggests to me that on some subconscious level, they suspect you are correct.

I want to reiterate what berticus said, in that this room features a bunch of white males trying to lecture a female on what does and does not constitute sexism. For my fellow dudes in this category, might I suggest you shut the fuck up and listen. bareboards isn't sharing a political or religious opinion here, she is expressing her genuine reaction to prejudice against her gender. It's not an opinion, it's a lesson.

Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is culturally acceptable or not. Ask a 'fag' or a 'bitch' or a 'raghead' if you want a broader perspective on what it feels like to be on the receiving end culturally sanctioned prejudice.

I agree that there is little you can do to change culture specific prejudice, but expressing yourself in a sift talk is a good thing. If people want to ridicule you for it, then fuck them. Doing the right thing is doing the right thing, even if you have no chance in hell at making a difference. In fact, I find it noble when someone does the right thing in spite of futility.

*quality for your true grit

Words are just words, and they only have as much power as we choose to give them. Yes words can hurt, deeply, but only if we allow them to have an edge in the first place. Steve here isn't saying racism and bigotry shouldn't be dealt with. He's saying morons who get all uppity because random people (like comedians) dare to even utter the word nigger, fag, retard or what have you cause offense and it's soooooo horrible. Grow the fuck up. Just saying the word nigger doesn't make anyone a racist. It's the meaning and force behind the words that are important. George Carlin said it pretty well : "Take the word nigger. There is nothing wrong with the word nigger in and of itself. It's the racist asshole who's using it you aught to be concerned about."

Personally if it was a guy getting hit in the nuts via a punch of the same manner etc, I would still consider it a worthless waste of time and energy and a devaluing aspect of the sift.

In reply to this comment by shponglefan:
If it was a guy getting hit, people wouldn't care. A girl gets hit, and everyone gets all uppity.

If it was a guy getting hit, people wouldn't care. A girl gets hit, and everyone gets all uppity.

I didn't take it as excoriation -- and indeed I was one who did not "fully appreciate the context and position". I'm always up for "fixing" things. I like the title better now -- I wasn't all that fond of the original myself.

I went with "black/comedian/cultural critic" and put Thurston's name in the description. Since I didn't know who he was, I wanted to be sure that others do now.



In reply to this comment by griefer_queafer:
BB, thanks for the thoughtful reply (and again, for the awesome post). I didn't mean to excoriate for not knowing who this dude is or anything, I just think that "young black man" can be a little disorienting for people who might not fully appreciate the context and position from which Thurston is speaking to us today. I would never want provide a title for someone's video, but since you asked me, I might just suggest replacing "young black man" with "Baratunde Thurston..." or "Black Comedian/Cultural Critic..." or something like that. But I don't EXPECT you to change it--I was just voicing my (slight) dissent. But in any case, *quality dialogue and vid. Thanks again, BB!

>> ^bareboards2:

Sorry, I had never heard of him. That title came from my anger at my racist uncle who just told me two days ago that the only "good" black people (he didn't use those words) were older. Didn't use the word "uppity" but he might as well have.
Tell me what I should change it to. I am not attached to this title at all.

>> ^griefer_queafer:
Yuck on the title. This "young black man" is a fairly renowned cultural critic and comedian, and his speaking "eloquently" is not all that surprising. Anyway, upvote for the video itself. Thanks for the content (but not necessarily the heading), BB.

BB, thanks for the thoughtful reply (and again, for the awesome post). I didn't mean to excoriate for not knowing who this dude is or anything, I just think that "young black man" can be a little disorienting for people who might not fully appreciate the context and position from which Thurston is speaking to us today. I would never want provide a title for someone's video, but since you asked me, I might just suggest replacing "young black man" with "Baratunde Thurston..." or "Black Comedian/Cultural Critic..." or something like that. But I don't EXPECT you to change it--I was just voicing my (slight) dissent. But in any case, *quality dialogue and vid. Thanks again, BB!

>> ^bareboards2:

Sorry, I had never heard of him. That title came from my anger at my racist uncle who just told me two days ago that the only "good" black people (he didn't use those words) were older. Didn't use the word "uppity" but he might as well have.
Tell me what I should change it to. I am not attached to this title at all.

>> ^griefer_queafer:
Yuck on the title. This "young black man" is a fairly renowned cultural critic and comedian, and his speaking "eloquently" is not all that surprising. Anyway, upvote for the video itself. Thanks for the content (but not necessarily the heading), BB.

Sorry, I had never heard of him. That title came from my anger at my racist uncle who just told me two days ago that the only "good" black people (he didn't use those words) were older. Didn't use the word "uppity" but he might as well have.

Tell me what I should change it to. I am not attached to this title at all.



>> ^griefer_queafer:

Yuck on the title. This "young black man" is a fairly renowned cultural critic and comedian, and his speaking "eloquently" is not all that surprising. Anyway, upvote for the video itself. Thanks for the content (but not necessarily the heading), BB.

@SDGundamX

I hope I've done the tag properly. I prefer notifications to be set to 'off' because I get enough junkmail from the other bazillion websites I'm registered to as it is, so yeah I don't pay much attention to that stuff.

Anyway, on to your reply!

Speaking of assumptions...

Oh boy! Here we go!

...I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice.

Yes, I did, as I've already admitted. It was a fine display of all the common symptoms of a religious apologist/troll, touting all the usual old and tired canards I've heard repeated ad nauseum; unjustified and arrogantly pronounced assertions with no evidence to ground them to reality, a blatant false equivocation, and flat out wrong characterizations of Hitchens et al's position. I'm genuinely sorry I had you falsely pegged but when it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...well, y'know. In other words, you probably could have done a better job of elucidating and then justifying your opinion.

You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

Your words are right there above mine. They are zealots that rival the fundamentalists they are opposed to, in their zeal to exterminate (I call bullshit on this, they seek to marginalize it not destroy it) religion. On what planet is this not a false equivocation? On what planet am I to not take you at your word? You still haven't provided evidence for this or the other claim that they even wish to exterminate religion, as well. Because they don't. If you don't stand by your wording then retract it. You really haven't read anything from them other than what you have learned from secondary, tertiary sources, have you?



...that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable.


Are you seriously attributing the fact that moral people can exist within the institution of a religion and still be moral, to the religion itself? Could you name a single decent thing a religious person can do that a non-religious person couldn't? What kind of morality do you think preceded the origins of the Muslim cab driver's religion? The exact same morality that has always existed between humans and other humans on some level, that of mutual altruistic behavior, the "golden rule" and that the Abrahamic religion has co-opted into the rest of their vile ideology. You have your causes and effects here reversed, human morality is what it is in spite of religion, and to invoke religion where its not even a necessary requirement is to trivialize the very thing that enabled homo sapiens, as inherently social animals, to get to where we are today in this technological age without destroying ourselves in the process.


In regards to the so-called ad hom: I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly.

Well, you are wrong. I obviously read your whole reply before I responded. What you feel is irrelevant. Did you just read that one line and then ignore everything else I said? I mentioned the "not thinking clearly thing" purely as an aside, I then went on to address your points. Ad hom doesn't apply, sorry. It would've if that was all I supplied as the basis of my argument; I didn't say "You do not think clearly, therefore you are wrong". Ad hominem isn't what you wish it to be so stop abusing the term.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is.


Being unflinchingly truthful and not kowtowing to the religious lies/claptrap and ridiculing those whose faith is threatened (who would have no qualms about being as rude and demeaning as possible in telling me so) by my sole existence is rude now. You should tell those uppity gays to be more polite and not stand up for equal treatment, in whatever way they choose as long as its non-violent/within the boundaries of the law, maybe their oppressors would stand down. No, confrontation is the answer if you want to change speak out and "business as usual". I consider lies to be harmful and rude and demeaning to an individual deserving of being treated like an adult in the marketplace of ideas, even the most comfortably benign, fluffy touchie-feelie ones.


I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

It was already pretty clear to me but thanks. It looked to me like you had already decided. You may NOW be appearing to question that, but again, what you may have meant certainly isn't what you wrote and to expect others to be able to know is dickish. I agree it's a good question still but haven't provided evidence to show its efficacy. So let's refrain from the assumptions. All I know is it wasn't some accommodationist, overly polite wank, unwilling to get his hands dirty to enlighten me, that stirred the feelings I've secretly held for so many years about my existence and God, it was someone who was NOT afraid of confrontation in surgically disillusioning my cherished notions of reality, of showing just how ridiculously absurd the whole thing is. It is a matter of ethics to value truth more than(key words) some default arbitrarily designated level of respect.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary.

Saying religion, of all kinds, is the primary (meaning secondary and tertiary factors also contribute but don't even approach the monopoly religion has on spreading misery, violence, and hatred) isn't really a controversial statement at all to me. History tells us much. Can you think of any other more divisive human social construct that has caused more strife throughout history? Shall we play the game of "add up the bodies"? It boggles the mind to think of where humanity might be right now if not for the Dark Ages.

For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil.

Communism is as much an ideology based on fantasy as religion. In so far as it is not based on evidence and reason and being willfully enforced/propagated, it is harmful.

So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas.


It certainly can be effective. I have no real evidence besides anecdotes and the correlative fact that religious membership levels in the US/Britain have been slowly declining since around the time the Gnu Atheists began to speak out and be more prominently featured in the media/Internets in general. The level of ridicule should be in proportion to the level of bat-shit insanity of the beliefs held. No one is championing a one-size-fits-all approach.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

Fair enough, I wouldn't accuse someone of dodging for being busy. I do not expect replies either, I hold you to nothing except your own words. I accused you of dodging because, when asked, you didn't provide much in the way of evidence to justify your assertions or a flat-out retraction. I could say this in any number of polite ways, you simply didn't.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight.

Guilty as charged!

You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me.

I made the assumption you were religious and was wrong, the rest still stands. You don't want others to take your word for it? Then add some more words! What you may have "meant" is not what I got pissed off at and responded to, understand this already.

Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

That's my whole point! You shouldn't have said anything at all if you didn't have anything truthful to say in the first place. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about when you talk about them and you rightly got called on it. I already addressed where I made any assumptions about you, the rest is through your own doing. You have NOT shown that they rival those fundamentalists they oppose, you have NOT shown that they wish to eradicate religion, you haven't even shown how they are zealots. You are being incredibly dishonest to the point of absurdity!


Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.


I've already read them and just re-read. Joilet comes off as incredibly honest, humble considering his position, and its pretty plain to see that the response he got, while initially bumpy, gradually warmed up to him as he elaborated and made it well known he is relying solely on his personal feeling in the matter and not trying to assert an attribution of those feelings onto actual reality. I think its great your attitude aligns with his, it may not be logically consistent but at least it's pretty harmless on the whole. Notice he wasn't tossing out baseless assertions, straw manning, or falsely equivocating.

I'd really enjoy it if you were to paste/copy what you said on Pharyngula and see how different the reaction would be. Such tasty schadenfreude! My guess is you would be entertainingly dismantled, rudely perhaps, but dismantled nonetheless. Welcome to the Internets.

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation, as lovely and downright tedious as it has been. I am done responding the minutiae of your several attempts at special pleading. Think whatever you want about the Gnu Atheists, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

nice uppity music. What do you call this kind of jazz genre?

That's exactly what I was thinking McBoink. They'll taze grandma, little Billy. and the uppity college student the instant they don't respect their authoritah, but it takes them THAT long to taze an actual real threat?

It still floors me that it's the year 2010 and we still don't have a device in every car that can remotely shut down a fleeing car and avoid all the damage caused by high speed chases.

That and it takes THAT many cops to take him down? There could have been half as many cops and it still would have been ridiculously embarassing.

>> ^Bloocut:
Do you have enough information to make a judgment call? Clearly not. Where is pent up racial prejudice contained in Dr.Laura's tirade? Is it her Jewish heritage that gives you the clue? Her valid observations as to the motivations for a large segment of the US voting for Obama and the colloquial terminology among many people of color, i.e. black folks? Perhaps it's her tone and delivery. Oh wait. She used the word "nigger" in the context of the conversation.
You may be right though you can't make a decision based upon this clip-The woman has a hard-on for confrontation with idiots who know next to nothing about raising children from what I can remember about her-She's always been an asshole and a salty, surly dame and pulls no punches when it comes to whiny idiots who call her for advice. Part of her persona to shock folks, doubt she's completely unaffected by racism like you appear CLEARLY to be.


So you're claiming she's not being insensitive in regards to race because she's jewish?

That she and you have enough information to pre-judge the motivations of a large segment of black folk in voting.

And are you really suggesting that the word nigger has some new neutral smiley colloquial connotation?

"Oh I heard some homosexual comedian in the 70's say fag once so.. FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT. What?! Yeah, I know I said the word Faggot in front of this group of young homosexual teenagers seeking advice about the resentment they feel toward the family and friends of their loved ones who constantly make Faggot jokes but know.. FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT. They hear it all the time. Lighten up."

So yes, to answer your question, the prejudice seems to creep up in her nonchalant/indignant tone when telling a patient that she's being uppity for being distraught over for having been called a nigger in her own home.

And the fact that Dr. Laura goes on to extend the caller's "racially hypersensitive" attitude to the majority of the black population is entirely prejudice.
Because it's based on her interaction with Jade, the caller, and probably a limited few others niggers. I mean black folks.

See my point?

p.s. - probably a bit hard to grasp unless you've been called a nigger your entire life

>> ^NetRunner:
That was basically my question to you. I gave an example where the implicit social expectations, and legal expectations were completely different, despite both being privately owned.

So it's the old "It's the law!" argument, I see. Your reasoning for making the comment "privately owned public property" is because the laws are already in place that distinguish commercial from residential, and therefore there's a legal expectation. Yes, because it's the law. Much like the war on drugs already sets a legal expectation.

Your social expectations you mention had to do with a business opening their doors to the public where a private home owner wouldn't. That's an absurd distinction. First, in a business, it's not open to the public, it's open for customers. They may permit them to browse their goods, but sometimes businesses have requirements before you enter such as a dress code or admission fee. And also locking your doors at night "constrains freedom", right? I mean, doesn't the black customer have a right to come into the white storeowner's shop?!

Your distinction here between legal and social expectations contrast what you say later: 'It's about taking away your "freedom" to put a blanket ban on people on the basis of race, group, or class.' Here again I've argued private land owners should have that right, even if I think it's awful. But Democrats want to argue a moral yarn about private property isn't private because of some social or legal expectation. But when you show how private companies need to limit private spaces (bathrooms, admission entry, dress code, etc.), the Democrats then have to play verbal hopscotch to ensure they take into account how an actual business needs to run. It's lame. Which brings me to the next response...

>> ^NetRunner:
I gave an example where the line between public and private is blurry, you gave one where it is less so. I said a couple posts back that I believe there's a spectrum of ownership. Some objects, when owned, are clearly close to the libertarian ideal in terms of the benefits of ownership.

But who decides? This is another Democratic fallacy. You guys want a Utopia and want to meddle in all aspects of human life, but you're never practical about it. Your rules are more complicated than mapping the genome.

>> ^NetRunner:
I mean, that's the argument you're making here. On a Metro bus, discrimination is morally wrong (why?), but on a Greyhound bus, discrimination is the business owner's moral right, and should be enforced by the police if uppity negroes get it into their heads that they're people too.

Here again the Democrats believe the civil rights movement boiled down to a resistance against private business owners. Segregation was a much larger issue in America than that. Blacks were treated differently in armed forces, they weren't allowed to hold government jobs like policeman and firefighters, they were forced to go to substandard segregated public schools, and the corrupt justice system wouldn't give them a fair trial.

But that won't stop the Democrats from blaming private business for the civil rights movement. Damn history when you have political opinion.

We should'nt require a civil rights act in a free society, but the pressures of racism in a community government proved to embolden the democratic voice of the people much like the gays in California were recently silenced because of your precious democracy.