Congratulations! Your video, Rick Roll evangelist win, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 12 Badge!

Your video, Rick Roll evangelist win, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 26 Badge!

@enoch

No, no, no, man, I would never downvote something because the speaker held an opinion about a certain topic that I disagreed with. Rather, I downvoted this because the subtext of the video is clear: you don't have to listen to what SJWs say because they are self-important blowhards who were coddled as children. Doesn't matter what the argument is that they are proposing. They are SJWs and therefore their ideas cannot be worth listening to.

And more specifically, if you pay attention to the images he is showing as he narrates his stance: you don't have to listen to what Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc. say about games (he's showing their pictures while decrying SJWs).

This is classic GamerGate tactics. Rather than actually debate the issues, which are the representation (or lack thereof) of women and other minorities in video games, he wants to dismiss the argument out of hand. You see it all the time in GamerGate supporter comments:

"Anita is a con artist looking to scam Kickstarter supporters out of their money."
"Anita is the feminist equivalent of a TV evangelist."
"Anita has hijacked feminism."
"Anita isn't even a real feminist."
"Anita's not really a gamer."

And so on.

They are desperate to get people to dismiss Anita's criticisms out of hand, mostly because even the most ardent haters can't deny there are problems with the representation of women and other minorities in ALL media, some of which are specific to video games.

It's all a big distraction from the issues. So what if everything GamerGate supporters allege is actually true? So what if she were stealing kickstarter money? So what if she is pushing some kind of feminist agenda in games? So what if she has appointed herself as a spokeperson for feminism?

Even if it were all true, the only important question is whether her arguments about the representation of women in games are valid and well-founded.

So, I downvoted this because essentially the author is advocating judging arguments on the basis of the arguer's reputation (for example, as an SJW) rather than on the merits of the argument itself. I see it as more blatant GamerGate propoganda trying to justify attacking the argument makers rather than dealing with the argument itself. Fuck that noise.

SJW is such a useless label at this point. It is now used purely as a cop out these days, a pejorative that supposedly gives you a free pass to ignore what someone is saying because clearly they are an coddled idiot (otherwise they wouldn't be an SJW).

I absolutely agree with you that justice, freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, etc. are important. And it is troubling that people in recent days are abusing the system to shut down dissenters. But this is the world we live in now and it really only reflects the political situation in Washington that has been going on nearly a decade now--lines drawn in the sand and ideas shouted down merely because they were spoken by someone on the wrong side of the line. I guess it isn't surprising that public debate is mirroring what we've been seeing in the capitol, only with the anonymity of the Internet allowing people to take it to a whole new level with doxxing, swatting, etc.

Well, I was raised Catholic and even though my parents weren't particularly devout, I absolutely believed in god up to my early teens. I even went to a Jesuit high school.

I won't pretend that I had some massively traumatic "coming out" as an atheist over the next few years, but it still had its challenges. Ireland in the 90s was still a very Catholic country.

So yeah, if she grew up in some super evangelist home, it would be very difficult. But some things are difficult and you still have to do them.

I must also chime in with 'you're kidding, right?!?' In the US, it often seems that ONLY religious voices gain traction, and if you dare to publicly admit you aren't religious you are instantly ignored by most and attacked personally.
'Atheist evangelists' (anti-proselytizers) can be unpleasant (as is any evangelist) but are a necessary response to zealous religious evangelists.

I would wonder where in the hell you get the idea that anyone cares what really religious people think. Also why the hell you would think that an "atheist evangelist" would help in anyway shape or form. It just plays right into peoples hands "See he's a psychopath, look at how much of a dismissive dick he is towards differing opinions."

Address criticism and answer to it, I used the example of Chomsky, maybe you should watch something where someone is confronting him in a vigorous manner. He handles himself correctly in my view, my opinion is that Dawkins does not. That he sounds like a dick and he turns people off and it turns out others in the field of science feel the same way. He is not the white knight we're looking for, we want him to grab some pine and shut the fuck up.

Again I don't know where you get the idea where anyone listens to religious people. They're useful to drum up and get votes for but everyone including republicans know they're crazy and do their best to control them rather than do their stupid bidding.

Meh, everyone is either agnostic, lying or mad. As @newtboy said, gnosticism means "knowing". No-one knows for certain that there is or isn't a god. Therefore, everyone is agnostic.

Which makes it a fucking boring position to take.

Gnosticism at least has the virtue of being interesting. You know there's a god? ok, why? Ahh, you've heard voices.... right. Just slip on this comfy jacket... yeah, the arms are kinda long, but don't worry.

The question is almost never "do you know there is or isn't a god", it's "do you believe". And in that sense, almost everyone has an answer one way or the other. You may choose to believe in a god because you feel that things like compassion, rainbows and the majesty of the universe are evidence of his/her existence. Or you choose not to believe because you feel that these things are evidence of group altruism, refraction and some really amazingly weird ass physics.

Yeah, be humble and admit you could be wrong, but FFS, make a choice.

Oh and @Yogi, I wonder how kindly you'd feel toward religion if you had a well funded organisation who had dedicated themselves to discrediting your life's work (and with the most trivial nonsense as well).

And that is why we have "atheist evangelists". Because experience has shown that if you don't push back, certain theist elements will gradually start to encroach on things that are important.

You just described one of the biggest problems with religion in general. You ask a 1000 people who claim to be Christian to describe god and what they feel god is about and what god stands for and how you live a christian life and you'll get a 1000 different answers and 1000 different definitions of god and I'm sure many of them will conflict. And every one of them will believe their way is right and any other way is wrong.

Everyone..from the abortion clinic bombers and hard core evangelists and fundies to the most moderate liberal believer...they all get to claim a shared belief for some reason..they all get used as a demographic to intimidate people into believing that their beliefs are the majority when in reality it's a lot more fractured. There are no true believers, because no one can definitively prove that there is one true way.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^RadHazG:
Yes but Santorum equating being gay to bestiality isn't a similar treatment? Spare us your ignorant ranting you two, the Catholic church has done nearly to the same thing to those it opposes over the years. Have some of your own medicine for a change.

I don't like this whole "The Catholic Church" distinction. To me it's like when people blame America when they're really talking about just the government. The Catholic Church is a misnomer in my opinion that doesn't represent the majority of Catholics let alone it's churches and their individual leaderships.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.



To use your metaphor, QM: I don't see shiny and his fundamentalist ilk as firefighters or concerned neighbors rushing to save anyone from flames. I see them as self-appointed building inspectors who refer to an ancient building code and attempt to demolish any house that isn't constructed according to their specifications.

Rock isn't flammable

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!"

>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.


Generally speaking you are right. But in this case shiny is a supporter of the company which only builds houses out of highly inflammable compounds. And he may was at the crime scene, who knows.

It isn't something that can be sold, but told, because faith comes by hearing. It is what is being offered freely..that the free gift of God is eternal life. It cannot be earned, but it is given to all those who would receive it.

You're right, certainly no one wants to be reminded that they are a sinner, but they certainly are going to wish someone told them later on. I had no trouble accepting this truth, personally..it was clearly obvious to me that I had done things which were offensive to a holy God. Some people are too prideful to admit it, though their conscience tells them otherwise. Why not humble yourself and be cleansed, rather than carry that weight around everywhere you go? It will never leave you until you ask for forgiveness.

So, I appreciate your words. I am only trying to do what is right. The people hated what the Lord had to say, and still do, but He loves us anyway

Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.