Link blog: atheism, meme, sam-harris, politics

New Statesman – Faith no more

"Earlier this year, Andrew Zak Williams asked public figures why they believe in God. Now it’s the turn of the atheists – from A C Grayling to P Z Myers – to explain why they don’t "
(tags: atheism richard-dawkins philip-pullman daniel-dennett sam-harris)

Pompous Theist

You've seen Advice Dog and Courage Wolf, now enjoy Pompous Theist. Well observed stuff: I've seen quite a few of these "arguments" in my time.
(tags: atheism meme funny humour theism religion)

“Shut Up, Rich Boy”: The Problem With “Privilege.” | No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?

"I’m a feminist writer, but I don’t like to use the word “privilege” in my writing. Here’s why not:"
(tags: feminism privilege)

Why Have Hackers Hit Russia’s Most Popular Blogging Service? – TIME

Where LJ has been the past week or so. For once, it's not their fault.
(tags: internet security livejournal politics ddos)

3 Comments on "Link blog: atheism, meme, sam-harris, politics"


  1. Might have to cook up some new Pompous Theist entries. In particular I can’t believe there isn’t one about tides, and there’s got to be a way of getting one out of “an unsophisticated atheist can’t explain what theists believe. A sophisticated theist can’t explain what they believe”.

    Reply

  2. I think Holly makes a good point, and I’ve never liked the “privilege” framing. However, most of the commenters on that post seem to think that you shouldn’t use the term privilege specifically because society is actually biased against men rather than women. And it’s a lot of the same names who have been making the same cut-and-paste points on all the big feminist blogs for decades now.

    I love the concept of that blog but it’s either going to end up having to ban Daran, Hugh Ristik, tu quoque and their set, or else it’s going to sink under the weight of people whose only political interest is to complain at great length that the US military draft and the divorce courts are prejudiced against men. Maybe I’m getting cynical, but I’ve seen the pattern way too many times: enthusiastic people start up a male feminist blog or community so that they can actually discuss men’s problems without being knuckle-dragging misogynists or disrupting ongoing feminist conversations. Great idea, I’m all for it. But they won’t moderate their comments to get rid of the repetitive monomaniacs, because they’re too susceptible to the criticism “you’re just like traditional feminists, you don’t care about men’s concerns”.

    Reply

    1. However, most of the commenters on that post seem to think that you shouldn’t use the term privilege specifically because society is actually biased against men rather than women.

      Well, I agree that that’s not why you shouldn’t use it (my main objection is that it’s a conversation stopper along the “I pity you infinitely for your sins” line, close to Holly’s third point).

      Great idea, I’m all for it. But they won’t moderate their comments to get rid of the repetitive monomaniacs, because they’re too susceptible to the criticism “you’re just like traditional feminists, you don’t care about men’s concerns”.

      I wonder if it’d be possible to avoid that to some extent by moderating for comments being off-topic rather than off-message. Holly’s post is about why the term “privilege” is bad, not whether some form of systematic advantage exists.

      Actually, reading it again, she thinks that both men and women face systematic disadvantages and specifically does not say (in that post at least) that women have it worse, so perhaps she’s off the usual feminist message too. In which case the response to people grinding their usual axe is that, to the extent that men are disadvantaged in the courts and by the draft, she agrees with the point and there’s no need to keep going on about it.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *