Transgender athletes set the atheist world on fire (Rationality Rules vs ACA) (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

Plus, if you ask most modern theologians, Near East historians about the alleged story of sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the age-old tale that many throughout history have cited as proof of God despising homosexuality or gays and lesbians in general, they'll tell you that both cities were destroyed because they had grown lazy, fat, intolerant, mean and hostile towards foreigners and strangers. It was also a common practice in the ancient Near East of showing hospitality to strangers, Sodom and Gomorrah didnt practice it because they didnt believe in it, they could've raped anyone else on those streets that night, why go to someone's house, bang on his door and demand that his guests, who are strangers, be given over to them? Sodom and Gomorrah were evil because they were extremely xenophobic and violent. In other Biblical passages, the authors clearly restate what their crimes were and their citizens' sexuality wasn't one of them. If that were the case, then God probably should've wiped out the entire ancient Egyptian civilization during the Exodus for practicing incest among its ruling dynasties or it's upper classes i.e. most ruling Pharoahs married their sisters to keep the blood lines pure.

btw thank you for this
very interesting

 

[DaveXA]

The problem with the "everything is Marxism" lens means nothing is Marxism. It's a double bind for both sides.

That's deep. I'm trying to wrap my mind around your comment.

 

[RazorOye]

That's deep. I'm trying to wrap my mind around your comment.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be unclear.

What I mean is that people need to be more judicious when they start throwing around the word "Marxist" everywhere, about everything. For both sides - advocates and detractors in the extreme. I've said the same thing about the allegations of 'racism' - again, it applies to both sides.

One of the popular things we're seeing more and more in the sociocultural discursive landscape is "Marxism" where everything is Marxist. Don't like something? It's Marxist. Don't understand something, but suspect you shouldn't like it? Marxist.

The problem is that if everything becomes "OMG MARXIST!" then it loses meaning, relevancy. And so the practical implication is akin to the boy who cries wolf. It stops mattering and there's more fatigue around the incessant claims than actual discussion about where it might actually be worth discussing or introducing legitimate wariness around.

As a general rule, I've found that the frequency with which someone invokes Marxism (in contemporary sociocultural contexts) is inversely proportional to their ability to actually talk about the topic at hand.

I was initially made skeptical about this when I was receiving feedback on my research from a neo Marxist... we didn't see eye to eye, sufficed to say. And the term has only proliferated since.

So, while people think they are pointing out an urgency around the term, in their frantic and ubiquitous and indiscriminate paranoia, they are really de-sensitizing people to it.

I think it's more effective to talk about the issue rather than to try and couch it in a term that isn't meaningful, but only to serve a paranoid-driven agenda.

And that everything/nothing becomes the double bind.

 

[crosswatt]

It's mildly interesting to me that South Park covered a highly satirized version of this controversy back in 2006.

 

[DaveXA]

Sorry, I'm not trying to be unclear.

What I mean is that people need to be more judicious when they start throwing around the word "Marxist" everywhere, about everything. For both sides - advocates and detractors in the extreme. I've said the same thing about the allegations of 'racism' - again, it applies to both sides.

One of the popular things we're seeing more and more in the sociocultural discursive landscape is "Marxism" where everything is Marxist. Don't like something? It's Marxist. Don't understand something, but suspect you shouldn't like it? Marxist.

The problem is that if everything becomes "OMG MARXIST!" then it loses meaning, relevancy. And so the practical implication is akin to the boy who cries wolf. It stops mattering and there's more fatigue around the incessant claims than actual discussion about where it might actually be worth discussing or introducing legitimate wariness around.

As a general rule, I've found that the frequency with which someone invokes Marxism (in contemporary sociocultural contexts) is inversely proportional to their ability to actually talk about the topic at hand.

I was initially made skeptical about this when I was receiving feedback on my research from a neo Marxist... we didn't see eye to eye, sufficed to say. And the term has only proliferated since.

So, while people think they are pointing out an urgency around the term, in their frantic and ubiquitous and indiscriminate paranoia, they are really de-sensitizing people to it.

I think it's more effective to talk about the issue rather than to try and couch it in a term that isn't meaningful, but only to serve a paranoid-driven agenda.

And that everything/nothing becomes the double bind.

That's actually quite helpful. I wasn't aware using the Marxist term had become a thing, but I can see why it would. I've never used the label myself, but interesting to see people weaponize it in political discussions.

 

[RazorOye]

That's actually quite helpful. I wasn't aware using the Marxist term had become a thing, but I can see why it would. I've never used the label myself, but interesting to see people weaponize it in political discussions.

consider yourself lucky... I want to avoid it, and can't seem to. Even McCarthy is looking up from his grave, going, "Damn..."

And it's not restricted to political, which is part of the problem.

But that's probably grist for another thread at this point

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

That's actually quite helpful. I wasn't aware using the Marxist term had become a thing, but I can see why it would. I've never used the label myself, but interesting to see people weaponize it in political discussions.

"socialism" as a pejorative is losing a lot of steam b/c Dems aren't running away from the term anymore - and saying 'yeah but healthcare or 'nordic socialism' makes it a potentially attractive term
so then 'marxism' becomes the closest handy term to invoke fear of the unknown

 

[SystemShock]

I haven’t been getting my Atheist Monthly newsletter. Can you check the logs to see if i am still on the mailing list?

While I don't subscribe to any of them, indeed there are atheist monthly newsletters, blogs, websites, podcasts... I used to be a regular watcher of the Atheist Experience, the ACA's youtube show, which before that was in public access TV in Austin, mainly because they used to be nice, and some of the hosts presented intelligent arguments for their position, and Tracie Harris. They were a small atheist island in a sea of religious programming.

But the past couple of years (maybe longer) they have become more belligerent and intolerant in their views - I guess this incident is kind of like the final declaration of intolerance. The call ins which used to be decent point-counterpoint conversations have become just bickering over semantics and trying to talk over each other.

And while they started with good intentions, I think they have grown a bit too big and a bit too mainstream for their own good, mostly because the face of the organization, Matt Dillahunty, has become a sort of an angry, poor man's Sam Harris. He's got cred, though. He was in Div school and about to become a pastor.

I still watch bits from time to time, when certain people host/co-host the stream.

 

[Saintman2884]

Guido, what's been going on for the past several years in Venezuela since Chavez died and has gotten progressively worse under Maduro until high-ranking military officers began a coup recently isn't some random "fear" of unknown like socialism. Right-wing media pundits are going to point to Chavezs Venezuela as a failed attempted socialist experiment-just like former USSR, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, North Korea and they may reasonably have a good point. Guido, Venezuela, 30 years ago, was one of the wealthiest oil-rich countries in South America. It had a decent, functioning democracy, was seen as more stable politically then neighbors Brazil, Argentina, or Columbia. Yes, it had a criminally wide income gap between rich and poor but those issues exist in Brazil, Chile, and even Cuba today but those countries seemingly aren't on the precipice of collapse.

Gradually, Hugo Chavez around 2002 or 03 began to massively nationalize foreign companies revenues, tried to pass legislation and succeeded in allowing him to run for President for life, he harassed, bullied, intimidated, sometimes opposition newspapers, TV stations, ridiculed opposition politicians, claiming they all served the interests of " the Empire"--United States. He even said proudly that he was a socialist, didn t care if he P'Oed off foreign international companies by nationalizing their revenues, state banks, companies, etc. As long as oil prices remained high, he and Iran were forking kings of the OPEC world, he could put all of his economic eggs in one basket, not diversify, he basically bought off Venezuela's poor and working classes by creating large social security/welfare programs, state insurance plans. Sounds great, nobody would disagree with that but large, multi-layered social programs are expensive, Guido. Very expensive and Venezuela isn't and never will be Germany or Holland. And eventually, there was a decrease, an oil glut around 2012 that caused oil prices to decline significantly worldwide and has mostly stayed that way since. When Chavez died, the whole socio-pooitical, economic apparatus he had carefully built up fell apart and his successor has become the scapegoat. Also, it didn't help that Chavez's Venezuela was extremely corrupt and a bit of kleptocracy, like Suharto's Indonesia. Because of Chavez and other high-ranking officials in his regime nationalizing foreign companies assets and profits, you think US and European companies, NGOS, governments except maybe Russia or China are gonna suddenly bail your arses out after you f***** them and told them to get lost 13 years ago? You lay in the dirty, nasty bed you helped make.

If you really read or critically analyze Marxist economics, philosophy, views on government, he wasn't a Republican, or believed in democratic, multi-party parliamentarian politics. He believed in an eventual anarcho-communist proletarian worldwide revolution would set up a one-party supposedly "temporary" dictatorship run by workers, govuerned by workers, screw everyone else, small or large business owners, clergy, those critical of Marxist-controlled worldview or government, you don't count, you don't matter. If you believe in God, or are religious, you're delusional or a class parasite, you should be watched, scrutinized, humiliated, made a second--class citizen. Eventually in a Marxist world, your kind will die off any way, whether you do naturally or we eliminate you from society. Freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of speech if it's critical or negative towards their power doesn't exist in a true Marxist state. Marxism, if you read Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital, has clear authoritarian tendencies and principles but it's well-disguised behind clever rhetoric and articulated points promising working-class liberation and/or revolution. But it's a revolution for certain select groups, no one else is relevant or matters significantly. Instead of creating a classless society, it becomes an inversion of class politics: the proletariat or working class or intellectuals claiming to be their spokesmen, become the new class overlords over the now powerless propertied class. The new Marxist Communist ruling class become new tyrants, the new oppressors.

 

[Saintman2884]

System, Dillahunty sounds a little like former Austin native and cofounder and leader of AAA(American Athiest Association) Madeline Murray O-Hair. If you're familiar with her history, she was hated and despised and criticized by even leading atheists for making brazen, intolerant comments, being greedy, corrupt, siphoning off funds from her own organization for her personal use, creating the stereotype of "angry, bigoted, militant" atheist who's disresespecful, rude, mean-spirited, confrontational, comes across as almost bigoted or xenophobic. She voluntarily and willfully helped create that stigma of atheists that still remains intact somewhat to this day, that their disagreeable, nasty, vicious, spiteful people who'll mock religious people of all faiths. Now honestly, between me and you, that's an unfair, irrational demonization: most athiests/agnostics are not argumentative, vicious, nasty people, most are moderate, ordinary, hard-working people who get college degrees, hopefully find decent jobs, get married and raise families, could easily be a relative or close friend.

But the O-Hair "militant, bigoted" atheist raises it's specter every once in a while when you see loud-mouthed, vulgar celebrities, comedians, talk radio tough guys like Sam Harris, Bill Maher, late George Carlin(who's act got Andrew, less funnier, and cantankerous from early 90s onwards) I always believe Carlin was trying to reinvent his career by stealing a page from Bill Hicks and stay relevant except he lacked Hicks charisma, charm, and sincerity and came across instead as bitter, angry, and redundant. At least Maher can piss off the overtly PC crowd when there behaving stupid and ridiculous. It takes some balls to call out the occasional idiots who like might like you otherwise, so at least I respect Maher somewhat.

 

[DaveXA]

My head hurts now.

 

[Flipx99]

Sorry, I'm not trying to be unclear.

What I mean is that people need to be more judicious when they start throwing around the word "Marxist" everywhere, about everything. For both sides - advocates and detractors in the extreme. I've said the same thing about the allegations of 'racism' - again, it applies to both sides.

One of the popular things we're seeing more and more in the sociocultural discursive landscape is "Marxism" where everything is Marxist. Don't like something? It's Marxist. Don't understand something, but suspect you shouldn't like it? Marxist.

The problem is that if everything becomes "OMG MARXIST!" then it loses meaning, relevancy. And so the practical implication is akin to the boy who cries wolf. It stops mattering and there's more fatigue around the incessant claims than actual discussion about where it might actually be worth discussing or introducing legitimate wariness around.

As a general rule, I've found that the frequency with which someone invokes Marxism (in contemporary sociocultural contexts) is inversely proportional to their ability to actually talk about the topic at hand.

I was initially made skeptical about this when I was receiving feedback on my research from a neo Marxist... we didn't see eye to eye, sufficed to say. And the term has only proliferated since.

So, while people think they are pointing out an urgency around the term, in their frantic and ubiquitous and indiscriminate paranoia, they are really de-sensitizing people to it.

I think it's more effective to talk about the issue rather than to try and couch it in a term that isn't meaningful, but only to serve a paranoid-driven agenda.

And that everything/nothing becomes the double bind.

The lady doth protest too much.


BTW, have you ever noticed that the same people who run around calling everyone they disagree with fascists are often the same ones who walk around with the hammer and sickle on a red flag?

It's odd how people can see the evil represented by the swastika and yet not see it in the symbol used by the Soviet Union.

 

[SystemShock]

System, Dillahunty sounds a little like former Austin native and cofounder and leader of AAA(American Athiest Association) Madeline Murray O-Hair. If you're familiar with her history, she was hated and despised and criticized by even leading atheists for making brazen, intolerant comments, being greedy, corrupt, siphoning off funds from her own organization for her personal use, creating the stereotype of "angry, bigoted, militant" atheist who's disresespecful, rude, mean-spirited, confrontational, comes across as almost bigoted or xenophobic. She voluntarily and willfully helped create that stigma of atheists that still remains intact somewhat to this day, that their disagreeable, nasty, vicious, spiteful people who'll mock religious people of all faiths. Now honestly, between me and you, that's an unfair, irrational demonization: most athiests/agnostics are not argumentative, vicious, nasty people, most are moderate, ordinary, hard-working people who get college degrees, hopefully find decent jobs, get married and raise families, could easily be a relative or close friend.

But the O-Hair "militant, bigoted" atheist raises it's specter every once in a while when you see loud-mouthed, vulgar celebrities, comedians, talk radio tough guys like Sam Harris, Bill Maher, late George Carlin(who's act got Andrew, less funnier, and cantankerous from early 90s onwards) I always believe Carlin was trying to reinvent his career by stealing a page from Bill Hicks and stay relevant except he lacked Hicks charisma, charm, and sincerity and came across instead as bitter, angry, and redundant. At least Maher can piss off the overtly PC crowd when there behaving stupid and ridiculous. It takes some balls to call out the occasional idiots who like might like you otherwise, so at least I respect Maher somewhat.

I beg to differ. Atheists were looked down upon/hated way, way, way before Murray's great grand parents were even born.

Murray wasn't a pleasant individual, and may have been hated, but I will argue that hatred came overwhelmingly from religious types, not only for being an atheist, but primarily because her court challenge of mandatory Bible readings in schools, which lead the SC to rule mandatory Bible readings in schools to be unconstitutional, and her activism towards the separation of church and state.

I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt and say you are confusing Sam Harris with someone else, because of all the things you can call Sam Harris, loud-mouthed, vulgar, or tough guy, is not one of them.

 

[Saintman2884]

I probably am confusing Sam Harris with someone else, but he has been a bit of a controversial author/philosopher, now when it comes to Murray, while a good percentage of the hatred and vitriol towards her might've been from religious organization/groups, she didn't exactly help her own image by being disagreeable, nasty, vicious, course in her behavior and attitudes towards those that disagreed with her. A bit like Ann Coulter in her demeanor and personality even though you might loathe the comparison. She had to step down from head of AAA because of accusations of fraud, theft, money laundering in 1986.

She alienated even liberal political supporters like Phil Donohue, who's Catholic, with snide, s***** comments she made to his face while waiting to come out on his show when it was still based in Muncie, Ind. She was perceived as arrogant, greedy, selfish, power-hungry and even former members of the AAA said she created and openly fostered a hostile, venomous working environment. She probably would've been a highly disliked, disreputable person regardless of her religious beliefs or none at all. Some people In this world are incorrigible in some respects when in comes to their attitudes or behavior, they can't be helped, System.

 

[Flipx99]

I probably am confusing Sam Harris with someone else, but he has been a bit of a controversial author/philosopher,

.

When it comes to Harris, you are far better off actually listening to him than going off of what others say. He has some very dishonest critics.

Even when I don't agree with him I find his approach to issues to be very calm and rational. Is he controversial? I guess it depends on what one means by that. He takes on some weighty issues and he is certainly not afraid of taking a position on which there is disagreement.

Having said that, one of his goals is to allow his guests on his podcasts to set forth their arguments in the best possible light. He even offers to edit out any portions of the discussion where they feel they mispoke. IMO, he is about as fair as they come.