The Pitters' Place

It's an argument on racism we've that's a year old. He was saying stupid shit at the time, but I didn't have the time or patience to unpack it properly...so I dropped it. Then he recently made a video that re-sparked the argument. He was still saying the same stupid shit(but even worse and surprisingly unoriginal). I almost let it go, but then decided to actually waste almost an hour explaining what was wrong. He's a fairly popular youtube atheist. It's not thunderf00t. I did once get into an racial argument with Richard Coughlan...I let it go because he was saying dumb shit as well, but it's not him. Anyone else subscribed to that fool? I only subscribed to him because he was one of the first atheists to hate thunderf00t...calling him out for his Islamophobia and general bigotry towards religion.

Godthatfeltgoodtogetoutofmysystem!

I alwayys found the term "pwn" annoying. Probably mostly because of the type of people I associate it with. It's in the same realm as "butthurt".

But, I'm bringing it back baby! I'm bringing pwnage back, them other boys don't know how to act.

What did you argue with Richard Coughlan about?

If I tell you, I'd have to kill you.

It wasn't anything huge, he just has a annoyingly typical/simplistic understanding of oppression...a proper lack of power analysis. He thinks ideas, ignorance and fear are the cause of oppression...rather than greed/power. Like it's something that just evolved naturally from people's ignorant irrationality....like it's just a racist culture merely not knowing any better. So, a person's "fear" of blacks is simply ignorance, rather than propaganda intentionally/historically instilled by certain powers to justify the exploitation of blacks. I was trying to press the intentionality behind it, but he wasn't getting it, and seemed to want to lecture me instead...so I dropped it.

Yeah, he's kind of idiot. Sort of. I still like him, though. I think. I don't really know, I haven't watched him in like a year. All the good Youtube people seem to have fucked off a long time ago.

Nowadays "youtube atheist" seems to be synonymous with "egomaniacal dumbass"

I still like him for the most part. But, youtube atheism is unbearable to me. Most of the people I initially subscribed to were atheists...and this was when I first began to tentatively acknowledged my own burgeoning atheism. I remain subscribed to most of them(the only one I unsubscribed to was thunderf00t, and I never subscribed to the amazing atheist), so I still see their videos in my feed, but never watch. I don't understand how they can keep talking about atheism so many years later...and there seems to be no evolution in the way it's talked about. How can you care about atheism that much? It just screams privilege when your biggest problem is your atheism. And it's no coincidence that white males seem to be most of the leaders and followers of the movement. Also, it's not even like they despise religion for truly legitimate reasons...like how it's been used to advance white supremacy/colonialism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. They might mention some of those reasons sometimes, but they are so transparent because you can see they are selectively using those reasons to advance their bigotry. I liked Coughlan 'cause he didn't really care that much about atheism and focused on criticizing racist atheists and British white nationalists.

Yes, to all that. But (as I'm sure you know full well) it's not just on Youtube. This problem runs through the core of the entire new atheist "movement". In fact I would say this problem defines the atheist movement. It's why I pretty much divorced myself from the whole thing a couple years ago.

I could go into detail on how the "new atheists" support and worship colonialism, militarism, corporatism, and white supremacy; and how they prop up and support a typical "us vs. them" binary where "we" are the (white) civilized post-enlightenment types and "they" are the (brown) primitive savages dragging humanity back to the Dark Ages and how "we" have to save "them" from their own barbaric ways (which, to be fair to them, is not original to them; it's a very strong undercurrent unique to progressive and liberal thought going back centuries; they're just updating it for modern sensibilities); and where they embody their own particular types of mindless group-think and religious worship, etc... because it's something that's been bothering me for years. But there's no reason to, when I could just defer to someone who said the exact same thing better than I ever could.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/new- ... ld-empire/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The article had me at "The “New Atheists" have gained traction because they give intellectual cover to Western imperialism. That is too fucking true. I can already tell that it's going to well-written.

You're welcome.

Oh yeah, that made me remember I got into an argument with Coughlan when he made some corny "tribute" video right after Christopher Hitchens died and I said he was a racist imperialist war-mongering douche and that the world was better off without him. He said something like yeah but he was integral to the atheist movement and he stood up to bigotry and blah blah blah so basically it all balanced out. Or something. I gave up. He really doesn't take his anti-racism very seriously if he's willing to go after people like Pat Condell but give people like Hitchens a free pass.

Why you being so coy bitch fucking give us details or shut the fuck up.

^This.

Ummm...how dare you use feminine language to address an alpha male like myself?

Take it back.

Derived Absurdity wrote:Oh yeah, that made me remember I got into an argument with Coughlan when he made some corny "tribute" video right after Christopher Hitchens died and I said he was a racist imperialist war-mongering douche and that the world was better off without him. He said something like yeah but he was integral to the atheist movement and he stood up to bigotry and blah blah blah so basically it all balanced out. Or something. I gave up. He really doesn't take his anti-racism very seriously if he's willing to go after people like Pat Condell but give people like Hitchens a free pass.

Hmmm..never saw that tribute. Just lost a little bit more respect for him.

Derived Absurdity wrote:I could go into detail on how the "new atheists" support and worship colonialism, militarism, corporatism, and white supremacy; and how they prop up and support a typical "us vs. them" binary where "we" are the (white) civilized post-enlightenment types and "they" are the (brown) primitive savages dragging humanity back to the Dark Ages and how "we" have to save "them" from their own barbaric ways (which, to be fair to them, is not original to them; it's a very strong undercurrent unique to progressive and liberal thought going back centuries; they're just updating it for modern sensibilities); and where they embody their own particular types of mindless group-think and religious worship, etc... because it's something that's been bothering me for years. But there's no reason to, when I could just defer to someone who said the exact same thing better than I ever could.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/new- ... ld-empire/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When comparing the value of places to live, I check how many people try to leave places and try to go to other places.
People are leaving third-world countries in droves (mostly to other third-world countries, but often attempting to go to the first world); much more than people leaving first-world countries for the third world. That's a clear vote, and provides fodder for human traffickers.

What I also don't like about this Jacobin article is that it suggests the following: "Western imperialism is bad, New Atheists support western imperialism, therefore atheism is bad." By associating "New atheism" with three men who are quoted out of context, they are making creationists look honest.

The article also ignores religious fundamentalism. But then, it was written before the 7th of January 2015.
Guess I should not take a magazine too seriously that has named itself after the most bloodthirsty faction of the French revolution.

K.

That moment when the type of person the article describes doesn't get the article...then unwittingly helps to make it's case.

This is also a particularly common phenomenon in the comment's sections of feminist articles.